mixpost_schedule_post

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden, but it only repeats the action implied by the tool name ('Schedule a post') and offers no side effects, prerequisites, reversibility, or post-conditions. The phrase 'for publishing' is largely redundant since a post is inherently for publishing.

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 very concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence with only five words. It could arguably add a bit more context without losing conciseness, but it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context. It does not explain the scheduling workflow, how this relates to add_post_to_queue or approve_post, or what effect scheduling has on the post lifecycle, leaving the tool ambiguous despite its simplicity.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters and the sole parameter postUuid has a clear description. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Schedule') and resource ('post'), clearly indicating the core action. However, it does not distinguish scheduling from sibling actions like mixpost_add_post_to_queue or mixpost_approve_post, and doesn't clarify whether a time parameter is expected (no time parameter exists in the schema).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as whether it should be used after approval or how it differs from queueing. No prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions are mentioned.

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