Create Instagram DM funnel draft

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

The description goes far beyond the sparse annotations (all false) by disclosing that the funnel is inactive, cannot reach an audience, and is safe for a draft-only token. It also details matching behavior (normalized whole keywords/phrases), timing (30-120 seconds), and message constraints (exactly one {{link}}; publicReplyTemplate optional and OFF when omitted). This provides rich behavioral context with no annotation contradictions.

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 three sentences plus a capability line, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: the first defines the action, the second explains functional behavior, the third covers activation and safety. No filler or redundancy.

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 description covers safety, activation limitations, timing, matching behavior, and content constraints, which is substantial given the tool's complexity. It does not describe the return value or what happens after drafting, but with no output schema, the description still provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool and handle the draft outcome appropriately.

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?

With schema description coverage at 56%, the description adds meaning for several otherwise undocumented parameters: keywords are normalized whole keywords/phrases, dmTemplate must contain exactly one {{link}}, leadUrl is substituted for {{link}}, and publicReplyTemplate defaults to OFF when omitted. It does not clarify name or dailyCap, but the schema bounds dailyCap and name is generic, so the description meaningfully compensates for schema gaps.

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 tool creates an INACTIVE beta Instagram comment-to-DM funnel for one already-published post. It specifies the exact verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_drafts and list_dm_funnels by emphasizing the draft-only, Instagram-specific funnel behavior.

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 provides clear context: use this for drafting a comment-to-DM funnel on a published post. It explicitly states the tool cannot activate the funnel and requires a signed-in human for activation, which serves as a when-not-to-use indicator. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., list_dm_funnels for viewing or schedule_post for scheduling), so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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