Update Post

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses critical behavior: dry run by default, irreversible text overwrite, the need for a plan_id on irreversible writes, plan expiry, and time-window constraints on rescheduling. This is substantial behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then action-by-action rules, then safety-critical caveats. It packs a lot of necessary detail for a four-mode mutation tool without fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 with no output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: dry-run behavior, write activation, plan requirements, timezone fallback, edit irreversibility, and the unsupported cancel path. An agent has enough to select the right action and pass correct parameters.

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?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds real semantic value: message replacement is irreversible, plan_id is required for irreversible/spend-tier writes, page_timezone is only for echoing local time, and cancel_schedule is answered with a delete-path explanation. These details materially change how an agent should use the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit a Page post the app itself created, or move it through the scheduled-post lifecycle.' It enumerates the four action modes and explicitly distinguishes cancel_schedule from the others by noting it is not a Graph transition, which separates this tool from its siblings.

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?

Usage conditions are stated per action: 'edit' requires content fields, 'publish_now' needs no other fields, 'reschedule' needs scheduled_publish_time, and 'cancel_schedule' is explicitly routed to facebook_delete_post instead. It also warns that only posts the same app created are addressable, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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