social_planner_generate_plan_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the output structure (3-7 post ideas, mapping to pillars, format, hooks, timing) but does not disclose any side effects, API calls, or limitations. For a content generation tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and key output details. No redundant information.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the expected input format for performance_context, the output structure in detail, or how this tool relates to its sibling tools like social_planner_render_plan_report.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context about LinkedIn-specific outputs but does not explain parameters like planning_period, num_posts, brand_voice, or performance_context beyond the schema. It does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 generates a weekly LinkedIn posting plan with 3-7 post ideas, each mapped to a content pillar with format recommendations, hooks, and timing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like content_planner_generate_content_plan_action, which is more general.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., social_post_creator_generate_post_action for individual posts, or content_planner_generate_content_plan_action for general content planning). The description does not provide any context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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