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

Annotations already declare mutation, destructiveness and idempotency, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: confirmation of the new slot is asynchronous and may take about a minute, with get_post as the verification path. It does not explain what the destructiveHint actually costs (the previous scheduled slot being overwritten) or any permission requirement, keeping it short of 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the verification caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and coverage from annotations, the description supplies the action, the asynchronous propagation caveat and the verification step. It could still say what happens when the target post is no longer scheduled, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both post_id and scheduled_for (ISO 8601 with timezone) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, timezone, or validation detail beyond what structured fields provide, which is the baseline case.

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 ('Mueve una publicación programada') plus the scope of the change ('a otra fecha y hora'). The qualifier 'programada' cleanly separates it from immediate-publish siblings like publish_now or publish_post, so an agent can pick it without opening either 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?

The description gives follow-up guidance ('consulta get_post después') but never states when to choose this over cancel_post plus create_post, nor any preconditions such as the post still being in a scheduled state. Usage is implied by the word 'programada' rather than explicitly specified.

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