Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses critical behavior: the post is never published, the user approves it in a dashboard, proposedTime only pre-fills the scheduler, and platforms default to all connected accounts. This is significant and useful, though it omits details like return values or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the non-publishing caveat, and the optional parameters. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and there is no unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential workflow, defaults, and limitations. It could mention what the tool returns upon success or any prerequisites, but the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it paraphrases the schema's notes about platforms defaulting and proposedTime being a suggestion. No additional semantic value is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: saving a post as a draft in the user's queue, explicitly noting it is never published. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_posts (read) and shape_post (edit) by highlighting the draft-and-approve workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when creating a draft that requires user approval, and clarifies that the tool does not publish. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is enough to differentiate from siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.