fb_create_text_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect (a post is published to the feed) but omits important contextual traits such as public visibility, irreversibility, required Page permissions, rate limits, or the kind of response returned. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the action, specifies the object, includes the optional-link qualifier, and names the destination. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool, the core calling context is present and the schema covers parameters well. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves behavioral consequences and sibling-tool routing to inference. It is adequate but not fully complete for safe, correct selection.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters completely, including the required `message` and the optional URI-format `link`. The description's 'optionally with a link' restates schema information without adding new semantic detail, so it stays at the baseline expected for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Publish'), a specific resource ('a text post'), and a clear destination ('the connected Facebook Page's feed'). The qualifier 'text post' distinguishes it from photo/video posting siblings, and 'publish' implies immediate posting rather than scheduling.

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 context is clear: use this to publish text posts to a Facebook Page. However, the description does not explicitly guide an agent to fb_schedule_post for scheduled posts or to fb_create_photo_post/fb_create_video_post for media posts. Usage guidance is implied by the noun 'text post' rather than stated as alternative routing.

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