Schedule a generated post

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true; the description goes well beyond them by flagging that the action PUBLISHES PUBLICLY, that user confirmation is required, that the referenced generation must already be complete, and that multiple accountIds fan out as a single group. These are exactly the side-effect and blast-radius facts an agent needs before invoking.

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 the action and destination before the warnings. The public-publish warning is capitalized and placed early rather than buried, and no sentence is 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers prerequisites, timing constraints, side effects, and fan-out behavior, so an agent can call it correctly. It stops short of describing failure behavior or pointing at cancel_posts/reschedule_posts for remediation, which would complete the picture.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the publishAt minimum lead time, and the non-obvious semantics that selecting several accounts fans out to all of them as one group. It does not elaborate on caption or workspaceId, which the schema already handles.

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 precise verb (schedule) and resource (an already-generated video or image) plus the destination (connected social accounts). The word 'already-generated' distinguishes it from generate_video/generate_image, and 'to publish' distinguishes it from the sibling schedule_rush_lineup. An agent can pick it out of the sibling list without opening the schema.

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 preconditions — the generation must have finished, publishAt must be ~2 minutes out, and the user must be confirmed before calling. It does not, however, name competing paths (schedule_rush_lineup, publish_automation, or plain write_post_copy for text-only posts) so the agent must infer that this is only for scheduling finished media.

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