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

Adds real context beyond annotations: drafts only (nothing is published), user reviews and schedules in RipClip, free, and it explains the fallback behavior of using evening slots until posting data exists and that the answer reports which was used. Minor gap: with idempotentHint=false, it does not warn that repeat calls create additional drafts.

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?

Front-loaded trigger examples, then mechanics, then exclusions and next step — a sensible order with little filler. It is dense and slightly cluttered by the stacked parentheticals, but each sentence carries information.

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 write tool with an output schema already present, the description covers source selection, output artifacts, scheduling times, platform constraints, and handoff to the review flow. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameters, and it mostly does: it enumerates valid platform strings with aliases (Shorts, Reels, IG) and notes X is unsupported, gives count range 1-10, and an IANA timezone example. It also explains clip_ids as an override to the default highest-scoring-unposted selection, though it doesn't clarify how clip_ids interacts with count.

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+resource ('batch of posts planned') plus scope: one DRAFT per clip per platform, source clips, caption/hashtags attached. It is clearly distinguishable from draft_post, write_captions and update_draft, which it names.

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?

Gives concrete user phrasings that trigger it ('plan my week', 'fill my content calendar') and an explicit 'Not for:' block routing to draft_post, write_captions, update_draft, plus the note that no tool publishes. Also states the follow-up call (show_drafts).

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