post_story

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known without the description. The description adds the business-account scope and version, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as required permissions, content validation, or response behavior. It is consistent with annotations and provides modest additional context.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary action. It is concise and well-structured, but for a tool with nine parameters and no parameter documentation, the brevity may sacrifice essential guidance. Still, as a purpose statement, it is appropriately compact.

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?

This is a write operation with two required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description only states the overall action and does not explain required arguments, response format, or relationships to related story tools, so it is far from complete given the tool's complexity.

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 0%, and the description names no parameters. The phrase 'on behalf of a business account' loosely points to business_connection_id, but required parameters like active_period and optional fields like content, caption, parse_mode, and protect_content are entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their meaning and format.

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 the specific verb 'Post' with the resource 'a story' and clearly scopes it to 'on behalf of a business account.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_story, delete_story, and repost_story, making the tool's core function immediately apparent.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_story or delete_story, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a valid business_connection_id or active_period. It provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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