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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and the title 'Edit an unpublished post'. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the refusal condition for published posts and the side effect that editing a scheduled post alters what will ultimately be published. It stops short of describing auth requirements or the response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and constraint, then the caution and the alternative. No filler or restated 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?

There is no output schema and annotations are modest, yet the description covers the highest-risk behavioral question (which posts may be edited and what editing a scheduled post implies). With 9 parameters at 33% schema coverage, the description leaves meaningful parameter-level gaps that keep it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is only 33% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the burden of compensating and does not: content, imageUrl, postType, imageUrls, platforms, threadParts, facebookTarget and linkedinTarget are unexplained in both places. The phrase 'only the provided fields' signals partial-update semantics, which is useful, but no field meaning or inter-field rules are added.

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?

States a specific verb (change only the provided fields) and a precise resource (draft or not-yet-published post), matching the PATCH-style partial-update contract. The publication-state constraint cleanly separates it from publishing/scheduling siblings like publishPost and schedulePost.

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?

Explicitly names when the tool is valid (draft/unpublished), when it is refused (already-published posts), an alternative for a related need (schedulePost for timing), and a confirmation prerequisite for scheduled posts. An agent has everything needed to route correctly.

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