Create a Buffer Draft Post (no approval needed — nothing goes live)

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

The description discloses that saveToDraft is hardcoded true (not a parameter), that it cannot publish anything, and that no approval is needed. These details go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) to explain the tool's safety and behavior.

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 concise, front-loaded with the key purpose and usage guidance, and contains no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value, and the structure is clear with separate sections for purpose and parameters.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, and return shape (id, text, dueAt). It lacks full output details but is adequate for operation. Slightly more detail on return values would push it to 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema for all three parameters: channelId should come from buffer_list_channels, text is exact body, and suggestedDueAt is 'informational only'. This enhances the schema's descriptions, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 'Create a real Buffer draft post' and emphasizes that it always saves as draft, no approval needed, and nothing goes live. It distinguishes from the sibling buffer_publish_post, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'use this freely for review/iteration without needing prior approval' and provides an alternative: 'For an approved post that should actually go live, use buffer_publish_post instead.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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