ghl_social_create_queue

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by revealing that the queue is created in draft status and that published posts are auto-added. However, it does not discuss error scenarios, rate limits, or authorization details beyond the OAuth scopes already listed. The annotations are minimal, so the description carries significant burden but still leaves gaps.

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, with three short sentences that all contribute information: the purpose, the draft status and auto-add behavior, and the endpoint and OAuth scopes. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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 tool with one parameter (a nested body object) and no output schema, the description covers the basic function and activation workflow. However, it lacks information about expected response format, potential errors, or what 'draft status' means in practice. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter documented. The description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema. According to the guidelines, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided here.

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 that it creates a new category queue in draft status, with published posts auto-added. It distinguishes from update tools (e.g., ghl_social_update_queue) by mentioning 'Use update endpoint to activate.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from ghl_social_create_queue_item, which creates items within a queue.

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 context by stating that the queue is created in draft status and that the update endpoint should be used to activate it. It does not mention when not to use this tool or provide explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as ghl_social_fetch_queues or ghl_social_update_queue.

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