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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint beyond that: the post must not have been published yet, which is a precondition an agent cannot infer from the annotations. It does not say what happens if that precondition is violated, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the key constraint is front-loaded right after the verb. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies purpose and the critical precondition. The only gap is failure behavior when the post has already gone out, which is a minor omission given the otherwise rich structured data.

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%, and the schema already explains the ISO 8601 format, the timezone fallback, and where post_id comes from. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Moves') and resource ('a post ... on the Content Plan') plus a scope constraint ('that has not gone out yet'), which lets an agent distinguish this from schedule_post and unschedule_post without opening a schema. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 precondition 'has not gone out yet' implies when the tool is applicable, which is useful routing signal. However, it never states what to do instead for an already-published post (retry_post? schedule_post?) or mentions the unschedule/reschedule alternative, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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