Bulk Schedule Posts

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing partial-failure semantics ('one bad item fails alone while the rest are scheduled'), return contract ('returns { totalScheduled, totalFailed, results[] }... read every row'), and an important edge case ('a past scheduledAt publishes immediately rather than being rejected'). This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Six dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, shared-vs-per-item model, failure handling, return contract, past-scheduledAt behavior, preconditions, and sibling routing. Information is front-loaded; the most important scoping statement comes first and no sentence is 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?

Despite 17 parameters, the description is complete for an agent to invoke correctly: it covers the shared/per-item data model, platform-specific requirements, output contract, partial-failure behavior, the publish-immediately edge case, the prerequisite call, and the alternative tool. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to document return fields, but the description still summarizes them.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful grouping semantics beyond the schema: 'platforms, connection-id arrays, timezone, and platform configs are shared by every item' while each item supplies its own text, contentType, scheduledAt, and media. It also highlights mandatory platform-specific configs (tiktokConfigs, pinterestConfigs), which helps the agent assemble valid requests.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Schedule up to 100 posts in one call to the same platforms and accounts.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from create_post by explicitly stating create_post is for a single post or draft, while this tool is bulk scheduling with shared platforms/accounts.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use create_post for a single post or a draft; this tool has no draft mode.' It also gives a required precondition ('Call list_accounts first') and calls out platform-specific prerequisites for TikTok and Pinterest, leaving no ambiguity about setup.

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