schedule_social_post

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds only one behavioral fact — that local file paths are automatically uploaded — and says nothing about the fact that accountIds are connection IDs that must already exist, what happens on partial platform failure, whether the created post can be edited/unscheduled afterwards, or any validation/permission requirements. For a 17-parameter mutating tool this is a substantial disclosure gap.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scheduling modes. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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?

The tool has 17 parameters, a nested variantContents object, and no output schema, yet the description never says what a successful call returns (a post ID? a scheduled job?) or how to subsequently inspect it via get_post_status. It also does not explain how scheduledAt and useQueueSlot interact when both are supplied. For this complexity level the description is under-specified.

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 100%, so all parameters including the thumbnail alias maze and variantContents are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the media URL / local path support and adds no semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ("schedule a social post") and distinguishes two timing modes: explicit datetime vs. next queue slot. It also notes media source flexibility. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling publish_social_post (immediate publishing) or update_social_post, so the boundary is left implicit.

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 when to use it (future-dated or queued posting) and hints at the scheduledAt vs. useQueueSlot choice, but never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick for immediate publishing or editing an existing post. Usage is inferable from the purpose line rather than explicitly guided.

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