Schedule post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context — no mention that content is published to external platforms, no timezone or past-time validation behavior, and no side effects beyond the obvious. It largely restates schema content (ISO 8601 format).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity leaves little room for the context an 8-parameter publishing tool ideally needs.

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 mutation tool that publishes to external platforms with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain scheduling semantics (past times, timezone handling), the thread/override composition, or what an agent gets back, leaving important gaps despite full schema coverage.

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 all 8 parameters (caption, mediaIds, postType, accountIds, scheduledAt, threadParts, firstComment, accountOverrides) are already documented. The description's 'ISO 8601' example duplicates the scheduledAt schema text and adds no semantics for threadParts or accountOverrides, so baseline 3 applies.

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') plus the scheduling constraint ('scheduled for an ISO 8601 time'), which implicitly contrasts with create_post (immediate publish) and distinguishes it from reschedule_post. However, it never explicitly names either sibling or clarifies the boundary, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (connected accounts, valid media), and no named alternative for rescheduling existing posts. The scheduling intent is only implied by the word 'scheduled'.

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