post_to_facebook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format ('dict with post ID and creation status'), which adds some value, but fails to cover critical aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the post is published immediately. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just three sentences that directly explain the tool's purpose, input, and output. There is no wasted language, and each sentence serves a clear purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, and usage guidelines. The output information is helpful, but overall completeness is limited, especially for a tool that modifies external state.

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?

The description specifies that the input is a 'text message', clarifying the purpose of the 'message' parameter beyond what the schema provides (which has 0% description coverage and only states it's a string). This adds meaningful context, though it does not detail constraints like character limits or content guidelines. With only one parameter, the description adequately compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a new Facebook Page post') and the resource involved ('with a text message'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like post_image_to_facebook (which handles images) or schedule_post (which handles delayed posting). It provides a verb+resource combination that is precise and unambiguous.

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 usage for creating text-based posts on Facebook Pages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like post_image_to_facebook or schedule_post. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., authentication, page permissions) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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