Run the posting refill

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

Annotations only carry generic hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description carries the real burden and delivers: dry-run-by-default semantics, no creative spending in preview mode, voice-rule screening that can drop captions (explaining why plans come back shorter), notes as the reason carrier, and a hard warning that dryRun:false posts to real public accounts. None of this is derivable from 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?

The description is dense (~100 words) but every sentence earns its place: purpose, preview contract, execution trigger, safety warning, and screening edge case. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses caps-lock sparingly to highlight the two safety-critical directives. Slightly long but justified by the tool's risk profile.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the preview shape (caption, creative, channels, per-channel visibility) and the notes field. Both parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the safety/edge behaviors are disclosed. Minor gaps (exact force/dryRun interaction lives only in the schema; notes content unspecified) keep it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces dryRun's default-true behavior and the 'actually queue them' flip, but it adds no parameter-level meaning the schema doesn't already provide. The force parameter's interaction with stored dryRun is documented only in the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 opening sentence 'Run the refill NOW instead of waiting for its daily turn' names a specific verb (run), a specific resource (the posting refill), and the distinguishing scope (immediate trigger vs scheduled daily turn). This clearly separates it from configuration/state siblings like set_post_refill and get_post_refill.

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 establishes a clear usage protocol: invoke for an immediate trigger, preview via the default dryRun, and only pass dryRun:false after showing the user the preview. It does not name sibling alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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