schedule_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool schedules posts but doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like required permissions (e.g., admin access), rate limits, whether scheduling is reversible, or what happens if the publish_time is in the past. 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, with three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, inputs, and outputs. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second documents parameters, and the third describes the return format. There is zero wasted text.

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 with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context (e.g., permissions, error handling) and detailed output structure. The parameter semantics help, but overall completeness is limited for a scheduling operation.

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 explicitly lists both parameters ('message' and 'publish_time') and specifies that publish_time is a Unix timestamp, adding crucial semantic information beyond the schema's 0% coverage. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail constraints like message length limits or timestamp validity ranges.

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 action ('Schedule') and resource ('a new post for future publishing'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'post_to_facebook' (immediate posting) and 'update_post' (modifying existing posts). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the platform (e.g., Facebook) which could help further differentiate it from generic scheduling tools.

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 future publishing rather than immediate posting, which distinguishes it from 'post_to_facebook'. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_post' for rescheduling or prerequisites (e.g., needing page access). The context is clear but lacks specific exclusions or comparisons.

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