pfm_create_post_previews

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 reveals the return format (per-account preview objects) and the placeholder behavior, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Since the tool name begins with 'create', an agent might assume mutation; the description clarifies it is a preview but stops short of confirming non-destructiveness.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core action, the second adds the placeholder capability and return format. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. Key information is front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, so the description must provide a mental model. It does so by outlining inputs (caption, media, per-account targets), the placeholder capability, and the return structure. It could elaborate on how account_configurations and platform_configurations override defaults, but the schema descriptions already cover those. Given the moderate complexity, the description is reasonably complete without being exhaustive.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. However, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by stating that non-connected accounts can be previewed with placeholder IDs, which directly applies to the preview_social_accounts.id parameter. It also mentions that the output includes resolved caption, media, platform, and configuration, clarifying how parameters like account_configurations and platform_configurations influence results. This additional context justifies a score above baseline.

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 'Generate a preview of what a post will look like for each specified account' clearly states the verb (generate), resource (post preview), and scope (per account). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pfm_create_post by explicitly focusing on preview, not publishing. The mention of previewing non-connected accounts via placeholder IDs further sharpens its unique purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need per-account previews of a post, including for non-connected accounts via placeholders. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the term 'preview' imply it is for pre-publication viewing rather than actual creation. The statement 'You can preview non-connected accounts by specifying a placeholder ID' provides a specific usage scenario.

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