postifys_cq_create_or_update_job

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

Because there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a server-side feature flag, a publish entitlement requirement, the create/update mutation behavior, and a critical caveat to keep schedule.enabled false until destinations are ready. It does not describe response shape or overwrite semantics, but the practical guidance is valuable.

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 four short sentences with no filler. Purpose and prerequisites are front-loaded, and each sentence adds meaningful guidance. It is easy to scan and leaves no obvious waste.

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 7-parameter create/update tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers the most important operational constraints and branches. The warning about schedule.enabled is exactly the type of insight that prevents real errors. It could be slightly more complete on required fields (e.g., dataTableId on create) and return behavior, but the schema and sibling context fill some of that gap.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify jobId semantics (create vs update) and reinforces the interval minimum and the schedule.enabled caveat. However, it leaves most nested parameters (defaults, timezone, destinations, schedule subfields) unexplained beyond the raw schema, so compensation is partial.

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 explicitly names the resource ('Postifys Content Queue') and the dual operation ('Create a job (omit jobId) or update (pass jobId)'), making it unmistakable what this tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like list_jobs or run_job_now. The parenthetical ('scheduler without n8n') adds helpful context for orientation.

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 gives direct conditional usage: omit jobId to create, pass jobId to update. It also states prerequisites (CONTENT_QUEUE_ENABLED, publish entitlement) and a strong scheduling constraint (interval ≥ 15 minutes). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the create/update distinction is enough to route an agent correctly.

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