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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it removes the QStash job, cancels a pending auto-retry, returns the post to Draft, clears a failed post's error, and refuses posts that have already published. These are precise effects and preconditions for a destructive mutation.

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?

The description is four tight sentences, front-loaded with the effect followed by usage guidance, alternative routing, and a refusal condition. Every sentence contributes useful 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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers outcomes, side effects, preconditions, and alternatives. The schema already documents both parameters, so no critical invocation detail 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 video_post_id and idempotency_key are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details about the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: cancels scheduled or failed posts. It also distinguishes the action from retry_post and from posts that have already published, so an agent can identify its role even with many sibling tools present.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: stop a scheduled publish before it fires or park a failed post for editing. It also names the alternative for republishing (retry_post) and states the refusal condition for already-published posts.

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