maasy_schedule_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it schedules a post and returns post_id and scheduled time, but it does not disclose that omitting scheduled_at saves the post as a draft, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The description is too sparse to fully convey the tool's behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that communicates the core function and return value without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits key behavioral context such as the draft/scheduled auto-detection, the default content_type, and the relationship between status and scheduled_at. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly, especially given the tool's complexity.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions), which is high. The description itself does not elaborate on any parameters, so it relies on the schema. The mention of 'scheduled time' aligns with scheduled_at but adds no new detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Schedule' with a clear resource 'a social media post in maasy', and mentions the return values (post_id and scheduled time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like maasy_generate_content or maasy_create_landing, which have different purposes. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 this tool is for scheduling posts, and the context of siblings suggests it is the correct choice for posting/scheduling actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention the draft vs. scheduled distinction that the schema hints at. Usage is inferred rather than directly guided.

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