schedule_reel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it excels: it explicitly discloses that scheduling only fires while the MCP server remains running, that it is not durable/cloud scheduling, and that it is best for same-session/same-day use. This is a critical behavioral caveat an agent must know before invoking the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then required parameters, then the critical limitation in a clearly marked paragraph. Every sentence earns its place without 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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the required parameter, the one-of constraint, the time format, and the main behavioral caveat. It doesn't describe the response/confirmation an agent should expect, and it leaves the two optional boolean/string params implicit, which is a minor completeness gap rather than a blocking one.

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 only 20%, and the description compensates by adding the crucial 'exactly one of video_url or video_path' constraint and a concrete ISO 8601 example for scheduled_time. It doesn't elaborate on caption or share_to_feed, but those are reasonably self-explanatory from their names and schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Schedule a Reel to publish at a future time.' This clearly distinguishes it from immediate-publish siblings like post_reel and from management tools like cancel_scheduled_post.

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?

It gives clear invocation guidance ('Provide exactly one of video_url or video_path, plus an ISO 8601 scheduled_time') and strongly frames when it is appropriate via the same-session limitation and the 'laptop is off' counterexample. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for immediate posting, so it stops short of full sibling routing.

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