Create a draft post

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

Goes well past the annotations: annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds the privacy envelope ('nobody outside the workspace sees the draft'), the non-idempotency consequence in plain language ('each call creates a new draft'), and the failure mode ('refuses the draft and says how many characters to cut'), including the Bluesky 300-character rule.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, and most sentences carry distinct information. 'channel_ids are optional' partly restates the schema default, and the guidance sentence about showing new text is slightly buried mid-paragraph, but overall there is little waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers failure behavior and side effects well for a two-parameter create tool. It stops short of saying what a successful call returns (e.g., a draft id for later retrieval), which is the one thing an agent might still need to infer.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still earns credit by explaining where channel_ids values come from ('the channels list in a list_scheduled_posts result') and by explaining the per-channel length constraint that is not expressed in the 2,000-char schema maxLength.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Saves a new draft post in the workspace's calendar.' The draft-only nature immediately distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings get_post_results and list_scheduled_posts.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks you to write, draft or prepare a post and wants to keep it'), explicit exclusions ('never schedules or publishes anything'), a cardinality rule ('call it once per post') and a confirmation workflow ('show the new text first and save it only when they agree').

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