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

Annotations declare the operation non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive, and explicitly not idempotent; the description usefully complements this by explaining that passing an idempotencyKey prevents duplicate runs on retry, and that delivery happens via connected accounts. It stops short of covering permissions, rate limits, or irreversible side effects on already-published posts.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, front-loading the core action and then the key operating instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens (a run is created, posts go out through connected accounts) and the idempotency behavior, while the schema fully documents the nested document. Missing only auth requirements and any description of the run result, which an agent would likely want.

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% and the nested schedule shape is documented in impressive detail, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's note on idempotencyKey largely restates the schema's 'Stable key to deduplicate retries,' adding the retry rationale but no new format or constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a publishing run from a schedule document,' and clarifies that posts are scheduled or published through connected accounts. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like validate_schedule or preview_campaign, so an agent gets no help distinguishing near-neighbors.

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 implies when to use it (after you have a schedule document ready to run) and gives retry advice via idempotencyKey, but it never names alternatives such as validate_schedule or preview_campaign, nor states prerequisites (e.g., accounts must be connected). Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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