Run the posting refill

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing that dryRun defaults to true, that passing dryRun:false queues posts onto real public accounts, that captions are screened and dropped if they fail brand voice rules, and that the plan can be shorter than the cadence. This is rich, explicit behavioral context that annotations only hint at, making it highly transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then covers safety and behavioral details. It uses all-caps emphasis effectively to highlight critical warnings. It is slightly dense with multiple clauses, but every sentence earns its place. A small trim could improve readability, but overall it's well-structured and not overly verbose.

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 there is no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining what the tool returns: the exact posts it would queue, including caption, creative, channels, and per-channel visibility, and notes that dropped captions are explained in the notes. It also covers edge cases like force and stored dryRun. For a mutating tool of this complexity, nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (force and dryRun) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds some context about the default and safety implications but does not materially extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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's purpose: run the refill now instead of waiting for its daily turn. It specifies the action (run) and the resource (posting refill), and distinguishes it from related tools like get_post_refill (which likely reads the refill plan) and set_post_refill (which configures it) by emphasizing immediate execution. The purpose is unambiguous even without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear usage context: run now instead of waiting for the daily turn, and explicitly warns to show the preview before ever passing dryRun:false. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_post_refill for preview-only scenarios, though the DRY BY DEFAULT feature effectively covers that. The guidance is present but not exhaustive about sibling differentiation.

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