Draft a group post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; "Sends nothing" largely restates that. The description does add one genuinely new behavioral fact — that output is rendered with WhatsApp formatting — but says nothing about what the draft looks like, its length, or how it differs from the sent message.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the purpose and kind list come first, and the differentiator "Sends nothing" is front-loaded at the end where it lands hardest. Nothing is padding.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should say what actually comes back (a formatted post body?) and how it is consumed downstream; neither is stated. It covers the core intent and read-only nature adequately, but leaves the return contract and most parameter behavior undocumented.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails to: it enumerates only the kind values (already a self-documenting enum) and vague "facts the user gives." Date, link, tone, emoji, options, location, and details are never explained, and "WhatsApp formatting" only loosely hints at tone/emoji.

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?

States a specific verb (draft) and resource (WhatsApp post), enumerates the supported post kinds, and adds the key scope qualifier "Sends nothing," which separates it from the sending siblings like post_message and schedule_post. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

"Sends nothing" clearly frames this as a compose/preview step rather than a send, which is exactly the context an agent needs to reach for it instead of post_message. It does not name the follow-up sibling (post_message or schedule_post) or state exclusions explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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