rednote_create_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it explicitly counteracts the 'create_post' name by saying it only queues and 'Does NOT post', and it discloses the return value ('queue id'). It omits auth/permission requirements, what the human approval step involves, and any failure behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the critical non-action, and the return value. The most decision-relevant fact ('Does NOT post') is front-loaded and impossible to miss.

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?

Without an output schema the description correctly states the return value, and the 80%-covered input schema handles the parameters, so nothing essential is missing for invocation. It stops short of connecting to the surrounding workflow siblings (rednote_open_approval_page, rednote_queue_status), which would have made the definition fully self-sufficient.

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 80%, so the schema already documents body, images, topics and aiGenerated in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 ('Queue a photo note') plus the key qualifier that it is for human approval. The 'photo' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from rednote_create_video_post and rednote_create_draft, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the media-type wording.

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?

'Queue ... for human approval' and 'Does NOT post' imply the tool belongs in an approval workflow rather than direct publishing, which is useful. However, it never states when to pick this over rednote_create_draft or rednote_create_video_post, nor when a note should go straight to approval versus being drafted first; the routing is left to inference.

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