Validate Taisly Post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'validate', implying no side effects, but does not confirm whether any state changes occur, what happens on failure (e.g., error format), or any required permissions/rate limits. The behavior is underspecified for a validation tool, especially regarding expected responses and side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 14 words with no redundancy. Every phrase (validate, local video path, destination platform IDs, caption, optional schedule, before publishing) contributes directly to understanding the tool's core function. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema and no annotations leave gaps: the description omits what the tool returns (success/failure indication, error details, validated data). For a validation tool, understanding the response is critical to decide next steps. Given the absence of other structured fields, the description should address this.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: it explains that 'platforms' should be from taisly_platforms_list and that 'scheduled' accepts ISO datetime or Unix timestamps. This improves parameter understanding, though not all parameters receive extra detail. Score above baseline due to meaningful additions.

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 clearly states the tool validates specific elements (local video path, destination platform IDs, caption, optional schedule) before publishing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taisly_posts_create (which publishes) and taisly_posts_list (lists posts), meeting the specific verb+resource+scope criteria.

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 phrase 'before publishing' implies appropriate usage context, and the sibling tools list provides clear alternatives (e.g., taisly_posts_create for actual publishing). However, the description lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios, such as using validation results to adjust inputs before creation.

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