Ayrshare Unofficial MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool can 'publish or schedule' and supports various features, it lacks critical details: it does not specify whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied but not stated), what permissions or authentication are required, how errors are handled, rate limits, or what the response looks like (since no output schema exists). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently covers the tool's purpose and key features without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a concise list of supported capabilities, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does and hints at features, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling), usage guidelines, and output information. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, it should provide more context to compensate for the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'text, images, videos, scheduling, and auto-scheduling', which loosely maps to parameters like 'post', 'mediaUrls', 'scheduleDate', and 'autoSchedule', but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Publish or schedule'), resource ('social media post'), and scope ('to one or more platforms'), with explicit mention of supported features like text, images, videos, scheduling, and auto-scheduling. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'upload_media' (which only uploads) or 'post_comment' (which comments on existing posts).

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, profile setup), exclusions (e.g., when to use 'upload_media' first), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'post_comment'. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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