ghl_social_post_create

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing a known live regression (important behavioral trait) and advising that failures may be server-side, not client-side. It also lists OAuth scopes and links to platform limitations, providing context beyond structured metadata.

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 relatively long but well-structured, starting with a critical regression warning (front-loading important info). It uses paragraphs and bullet points in the schema, though the main description text could be more concise. Every sentence serves a purpose, but some redundancy exists with the schema content.

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 (multiple platforms, nested objects, many parameters), the description covers the key aspects: supported platforms, customization, error handling, OAuth scopes, and a link to platform limits. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain return values per rules. It misses some details on post-publishing behavior but is adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides (each parameter has extensive descriptions). The only addition is a reference link to platform limitations, which is marginally helpful but does not deepen understanding of individual parameters.

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 the tool creates posts for all supported platforms, mentions customization per channel, and references platform-specific details. The verb 'Create post' plus the resource 'posts' makes the purpose unmistakable. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_social_edit_post, the name and description suffice for clear identification.

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 such as ghl_social_edit_post or ghl_social_delete_post. It does not specify prerequisites, preferred situations, or when not to use it. The only contextual advice is about handling failures (server-side issue), which is about troubleshooting, not selection.

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