Create recurring schedule

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses automatic creation and publishing, visibility in the web app, and the key lifecycle detail that a post record exists only after an occurrence fires. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by lifecycle/visibility context and a clear usage cue. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 complex 11-parameter create tool, the description covers the key conceptual model: when posts appear, where the schedule is visible, and the recurringScheduleId link to generated posts. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and the description does not state what the create call returns, but schema coverage compensates for most invocation details.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics and instead focuses on tool behavior, which is appropriate. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create a new recurring post schedule') and clearly distinguishes this tool from one-off post creation by explaining that posts are materialized only when an occurrence fires. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_post and bulk_posts without requiring the agent to open schemas.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a recurring posting schedule,' giving a clear selection trigger. It does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like create_post for one-off posts, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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