Create Scheduled Post

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: future timestamps required, media attachment rules, and platform-specific post types. However, it lacks disclosure of potential issues like permission requirements, idempotency, or side effects such as overwriting existing schedules.

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-organized: a concise summary, a platform matrix, and brief usage notes. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: post types, media/replies, and scheduling constraint. It omits return value hints but is otherwise complete for most use cases.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining platform-specific post type support (e.g., text only on Facebook/Threads) and clarifies that scheduleAt must be a future ISO 8601 UTC timestamp, going beyond 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 the tool schedules a post to a connected account at a specific time, listing supported platforms per post type. It distinguishes itself from siblings like repliz_update_schedule and repliz_delete_schedule by focusing on creation and 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 description implies usage for scheduling posts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like repliz_send_message (immediate publish) or repliz_update_schedule (edit existing). No exclusions or contextual cues are provided.

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