preview_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: nothing is published. It nonetheless does not explain what "validate" actually does (hard errors vs. warnings, whether it contacts platform APIs, any rate limits) or what a caller gets back, so the behavioral picture is only partially complete.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the parameter notes are laid out as a tight list, each adding format detail rather than restating the schema. The parameter list is slightly long but every entry carries concrete example values that earn their place.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone; it covers the purpose, the non-mutating behavior, and the higher-value parameters with examples. The remaining gaps, what a validation result contains and the text/title parameters, are modest for a preview tool but keep this short of full completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for four of six parameters with concrete formats (platforms as ["x","linkedin"] or ["all"], media_paths as absolute Mac paths, overrides as per-platform text, options as per-platform settings with youtube/tiktok/linkedin examples). text and title remain undocumented, but the added semantics substantially exceed the bare schema.

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?

"Validate a post for each platform without publishing" gives a specific verb (validate), a specific resource (post), and an explicit scope (per platform, no publish side effect). The phrase "without publishing" cleanly separates it from the publish_post sibling without needing to name it.

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 "without publishing" framing implies this is a dry-run to use before publish_post, and the platforms/media/overrides parameter notes imply the typical call shape. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over publish_post or that it should be run first, leaving the routing to inference.

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