Schedule Ghost posts

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to re-state that this mutates state. It adds real value beyond them by bounding the blast radius: no newsletter sends, no deploy trigger. Idempotency (annotated false) and retry/duplicate behavior are not addressed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the action described first and the constraints and exclusions following. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus description together cover the safety profile and side-effect boundaries. The remaining gap is the unexplained plan_hash parameter and the unstated plan-first workflow, which matters for a destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It reinforces the required user_confirmed=true and the phrase 'exact current drafts' hints that the posts array's updated_at values act as a staleness guard, but plan_hash — arguably the most important parameter — is never explained and no format guidance is given for the date-time fields.

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 (schedule) plus resource (exact current drafts) and the outcome (future web publication), which separates it from publish_posts and unschedule_posts. It does not explicitly contrast with plan_schedule, its most closely related sibling, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 a hard precondition (user_confirmed=true) and two explicit exclusions (does not send newsletters, does not trigger deployment), which is genuine when/when-not guidance. It never tells the agent to run plan_schedule first to obtain plan_hash, leaving half of the intended workflow implicit.

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