fb_publish_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: skip_validation bypasses checks, scheduled_at time constraints, image required conditionally, and the return structure. It also explains the need for page_access_token in production. However, it does not mention rate limits or detailed error scenarios beyond the return block.

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 well-structured as a docstring with clear sections for each parameter and the return value. It is verbose but every line adds value. Minor improvement possible by shortening some explanations, but overall efficient.

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 6 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and an output schema mentioned, the description covers all parameters, their constraints, and the return value. It does not mention sibling tools explicitly but the purpose is clear. Missing error handling examples or advanced edge cases, but still sufficiently complete.

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 0%, but the description provides rich details for each parameter: image_url's conditional requirement, scheduled_at's time delta constraints, page_access_token's derivation and necessity, and skip_validation's default/impact. This fully compensates for the missing schema 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 'Publish a post on a Facebook Page via Meta Graph API.' It uses a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('post on a Facebook Page'), and the sibling tools (anti-duplicate check, generate with image, validate) are distinct, so there is no confusion.

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?

While the description explains parameters in detail, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (fb_anti_duplicate_check, fb_generate_post_with_image, fb_validate_pre_publish). The context implies that this is the main publishing tool, but no when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given.

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