Create / schedule / publish a post

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the cross-tool ordering constraint that media must be uploaded first and the returned objects passed as `images`, plus the note that drafts still require a date under the current API contract. It does not mention failure modes, partial-channel failures, or what a successful call yields.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the payload description is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite workflow. Every sentence carries either scope, enum semantics, or a dependency the agent must satisfy.

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 six-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisites, the publish-mode fork, and the media flow, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is that it never says what the call returns (post ids, status) even though there is no output schema to carry that information.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance meaning the schema cannot express: channel ids originate from postsider_list_channels, dates/slots from postsider_find_slot, and image objects from postsider_upload_media_from_url. That is genuine value beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Create a post across one or more channels') and the second disambiguates the `type` enum values, which is the main behavioral fork of the tool. This clearly separates it from siblings like postsider_update_post_status and postsider_delete_post, which operate on posts that already exist.

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?

It routes the agent through the correct prerequisites by name: get channel ids from postsider_list_channels, get a slot from postsider_find_slot, and upload media via postsider_upload_media_from_url before passing the returned objects. What is missing is an explicit exclusion (e.g. use postsider_update_post_status or postsider_get_post instead when editing an existing post), so the agent must infer the create-vs-edit boundary.

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