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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value the annotations cannot: the post is not removed but demoted to an approved draft, and the action is reversible via re-scheduling — useful context against a destructiveHint label. It does not cover error behavior or permissions.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the precondition and the resulting state front-loaded. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and solid annotations, the description covers the essential outcome and precondition. The remaining gap — failure mode when the post is already publishing, and the post_id semantics — is minor but real.

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 50%: workspace_id is documented ('from list_workspaces') but post_id has no description at all. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — not even that post_id must identify a scheduled, not-yet-publishing post. With half the parameters undocumented, the description should be compensating and is not.

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 ('Unschedules') and resource ('post'), and the parenthetical ('stays as an approved draft you can schedule again') implicitly distinguishes it from delete_post by naming the resulting state rather than removal. Sibling differentiation is present but implicit — no sibling is named.

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?

'a post that has not started publishing' gives a clear precondition that scopes when the tool applies, and 'you can schedule again' points to the recovery path (schedule_post). It stops short of saying what to do when the post has already started publishing — presumably an error case that is left unstated.

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