Plan a week of posts

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the cost two-phase flow (no confirm = price and allowance check, spends nothing; confirm:true = starts the batch and bills credits), the draft lifecycle (posts stay drafts until run_post_refill), and the fact this tool publishes nothing. None of that is inferable from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger, then the behavior, then the hand-offs to get_job and run_post_refill – a sensible order. It is dense and nearly every clause earns its place, though 'decline:true records that the user said no' largely repeats the schema's own wording.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: trigger conditions, spend behavior, what is produced (5 posts with image, caption, timing), how to retrieve results, and what happens next. The absence of return-value docs is handled by redirecting to get_job.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema: confirm actually starts the batch and bills credits, while decline records a refusal. timezone is left to the schema, which already explains it adequately, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

States a concrete verb and artifact: 'drafts one batch of 5 posts for the active brand: a new image, a caption and a suggested day and time for each.' This clearly separates it from plan_ad, plan_variations and run_post_refill, which an agent could otherwise confuse with week planning.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('when the user wants a week of social posts planned, or answers yes or no'), then names the follow-on tools: get_job to read the posts and run_post_refill to approve them. When-to-use, when-not (publishes nothing) and alternatives are all present.

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