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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by disclosing that the move applies across all networks and that the target must be at least 15 minutes out. It doesn't say what state changes (e.g., whether approval is reset) or what errors the minimum-lead-time rule produces, which keeps 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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and the format constraint, with zero filler. The parenthetical 'all its networks' slightly interrupts the flow but carries genuinely useful scope information, so the tradeoff is acceptable.

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 annotations that cover reversibility and idempotency, the description supplies the format rule, the lead-time constraint, and the target population. Remaining gaps — failure modes and whether the move resets approval state — are modest 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It compensates well for 'when' (ISO 8601, at least 15 minutes from now) but leaves 'video_id' implicit — the agent must infer it refers to the ID of a scheduled video, not any video.

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 and resource ('Moves a video the user scheduled') plus a scope qualifier ('all its networks') and a target ('another time'). The clause 'Not for videos already posted' separates it from publish_video and the post-publication tools without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('Not for videos already posted') and an eligibility constraint ('at least 15 minutes from now'), which is clear when-to-use context. It stops short of naming alternatives such as move_slot or update_slot, so the agent must infer which scheduling tool applies to slots vs. videos.

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