schedule_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'advanced automation and optimal timing,' which is vague and doesn't explain side effects, required permissions, the effect of omitting schedule_time, or how recurring schedules behave. Highly insufficient for a scheduling tool.

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 a single sentence and not verbose, but it's under-specified. 'Advanced automation' and 'optimal timing' are filler phrases that don't communicate concrete facts. It's concise but not structured to highlight key operational details.

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 (nested automation_settings, 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain the scheduling flow, required parameters beyond the schema, or how it relates to sibling tools like auto_hashtag_suggestions or publish_thread. An agent would struggle to understand the tool's full capabilities.

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%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; 'advanced automation' vaguely hints at the automation_settings object but doesn't explain it. The schema itself 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 uses a clear verb ('Schedule') and resource ('posts'), and hints at automation and timing. However, 'advanced automation' and 'optimal timing' are vague, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with immediate publishing tools like publish_thread, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like publish_thread or create_post_with_restrictions. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints beyond the word 'schedule,' so an agent has no direction for tool selection.

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