Create post draft

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that this tool does not publish, that drafts are files users can inspect, and that it validates against per-platform rules and reports violations. These are significant behavioral traits. However, it leaves the failure behavior ambiguous—whether a draft is created if validation fails—and does not mention return values or permissions. Thus it is transparent but has a minor gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides essential information. It is concise without any fluff or repetition, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function and constraints.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, validation, and non-publishing behavior, but it does not specify the return value format (e.g., draft ID, violations list) or the behavior when validation fails. The absence of an output schema means the description should provide more return-related details. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it primarily paraphrases the parameter names ('text + media + target platforms'). The mention of char limits and media counts/sizes gives some context about constraints, but it does not clarify details like acceptable text format or how platforms are specified (beyond the schema's enum). The description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('post draft'), and scope ('text + media + target platforms'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting that nothing is published and by referencing publish_post as the publishing alternative. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool (creating a reviewable draft) and explicitly names an alternative ('use publish_post to send'). However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions such as 'use create_thread_draft for thread drafts', which would further strengthen the guidance. The context is still quite clear.

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