queue_approved_posts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether queued posts publish immediately or at the configured schedule, whether the call is idempotent, what happens on a duplicate or invalid request, or what the caller gets back — a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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 short sentences, the action first and the request_id tip second. Nothing is wasted and the key instruction is front-loaded.

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?

Given 3 parameters with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It leaves the meaning of two parameters and the entire post-call behavior unspecified for a mutation 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 must compensate. It only explains request_id (save it to repeat the request); the posts array and the 'approved' boolean (default false, and its interaction with the tool's approval premise) are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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 names a concrete verb and resource — placing already-approved texts into the publishing schedule — which is more specific than the tool name alone. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like configure_publishing_schedule or pause_publishing, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'После утверждения конкретных текстов' implies a precondition (approval must happen first) and hints at repeatability via request_id. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the publishing siblings, so usage is only implied.

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