Create a post

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

Annotations already assert readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the no-side-effect draft path, deferred publication by a worker, and the media/asset-id dependency. It stops short of stating failure behavior or whether re-scheduling replaces an existing job.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the publish/draft decision that most affects the call, followed by argument shape and prerequisites. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with nested targets objects and no output schema, the description covers the critical decision points (draft vs scheduled, single vs multi-channel, media and rules prerequisites). It is close to complete; only edge behavior on scheduling failures or replacement of prior jobs is left implicit.

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 schema already documents channel/targets exclusivity, scheduledAt, mediaAssetIds and deliveryMode; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the channel-vs-targets choice and the media-id provenance, but adds no syntax or constraint detail the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a post for this brand') and immediately clarifies the draft-vs-scheduled outcome, which is the core behavior. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling creators (create_posts, bulk_posts, create_evergreen_queue), leaving the multi-channel-via-targets path ambiguous against the plural variants.

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?

Explicit branch logic: without scheduledAt it is a draft that publishes nothing, with scheduledAt it is queued for the worker. It also sequences prerequisites by naming upload_media and get_channel_rules as things to do first, so the agent knows the ordering and the alternative tools to call.

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