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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: asynchronous execution, workspace approval rules gating publishability, the returned job id, and the retry-safety contract tied to idempotency_key. The retry-safe claim sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but it is explicitly conditioned on reusing the same idempotency_key, so it is reconcilable rather than contradictory. Still missing is what happens on partial failure of a 200-post batch.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool creates before moving to rules, return value, and retry behavior. No filler; every clause carries operational information. Slightly dense but appropriately sized for a multi-object async job tool.

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 an async, nested-object tool with 6 params and no output schema, the description covers scope, per-item requirements, approval gating, the polling counterpart, and retry semantics. It does not explain batch-level failure behavior, validation failures, or when workspace_id/brand_id are required, which the schema only hints at.

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?

With schema coverage at 50%, the description compensates by explaining the posts array semantics (platform, caption, scheduledAt with offset, destination, optional media) and the idempotency_key retry contract, which the schema states only via pattern/example. It leaves the generic body/query override objects and brand_id undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Create an asynchronous job to schedule 1-200 supplied social posts in the selected workspace', with per-post contents enumerated. It clearly states the deliverable (a job id) and names the companion tool aidelly_get_bulk_fill_job. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling aidelly_bulk_create_posts or aidelly_create_scheduled_post, so an agent cannot pick between them from the text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 1-200 post scope and the async framing; there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no when-not/exclusion. The only routing guidance is downstream (call aidelly_get_bulk_fill_job to poll), which helps but does not tell the agent when this tool beats aidelly_bulk_create_posts or aidelly_create_post.

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