Create Post

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

Beyond the annotations, which only say readOnlyHint is false, the description discloses the dry-run-by-default behavior, the need to repeat with apply:true to actually publish, and the three publishing modes (immediate, draft via published:false, scheduled). This is critical non-obvious behavioral context that an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 only three sentences with no filler: post types are front-loaded, then publish modes, then the dry-run/apply caveat. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information and the structure makes the most important behavioral detail prominent.

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 10-parameter tool, the description covers the high-level post types, scheduling/draft behavior, and the critical dry-run default. It does not describe the success response shape, and it slightly oversimplifies the apply flag's server-configuration dependency, but the very detailed input schema fills most of those gaps.

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 100% and every paramter already carries detailed documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful high-level mapping of post types to parameter combinations, but it does not add meaningful per-parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 specific resource and operation — 'Create a Page post' — and enumerates the supported post types (plain text, link, multi-link carousel, multi-photo carousel), so the tool's scope is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like facebook_create_photo_post, leaving some overlap to be inferred.

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 when to use the tool by listing its supported content types and publish modes, but it never explicitly states when-not-to-use it or points to an alternative such as video or reel creation. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself does not offer explicit routing guidance.

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