pfm_create_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the override precedence ('most specific override wins') and the scheduling vs. immediate publishing behavior. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as draft handling, media processing, idempotency, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool of this complexity, this is a moderate but incomplete disclosure.

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—three sentences—and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of guidance (scheduling, overrides, precedence). No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to the tool's usability.

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 high complexity (8 parameters, nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is relatively brief. However, the schema itself is extremely rich with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description covers the essential decision-making points: schedule vs. immediate, override hierarchy, and multi-account support. It does not explain return values, but since no output schema is defined, that is acceptable. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

Although the schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics that are not in the schema: 'Omit scheduled_at to post instantly' clarifies the behavior of the scheduled_at parameter, and the description explains the roles of `platform_configurations` and `account_configurations` as override layers. The 'most specific override wins' rule adds precedence semantics that are absent from the schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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's function: create and schedule (or immediately publish) a social media post across one or more accounts. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like pfm_create_media_upload_url or pfm_create_social_account by focusing on the post creation and scheduling aspect. The verb 'create' and resource 'social media post' are specific 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 provides clear situational guidance: omit `scheduled_at` to post instantly versus scheduling, and use `platform_configurations` for per-platform overrides versus `account_configurations` for per-account overrides. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like pfm_create_post_previews, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is clear for the parameters it covers but not exhaustive.

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