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

Annotations supply the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it names the required scope (publish:post) and constrains the mutation to two fields only, which qualifies the otherwise alarming 'destructive' flag. It does not mention that rescheduling will fail for non-scheduled posts, a minor gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope of change, followed by the permission and the postId source. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but this is a simple mutation where annotations carry the safety semantics and the description clarifies scope, auth, and parameter sourcing. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the behavior on non-scheduled posts is left implicit.

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 100%, so parameters are already fully documented, and the description's mention of scheduledFor and timezone is largely a restatement. It adds no format or default detail beyond the schema and actually omits that timezone is optional (defaults to Europe/London). Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move one scheduled post') plus the exact fields that change ('a new scheduledFor and timezone'). It also bounds the operation ('nothing else about the post changes'), which cleanly separates it from soclo_posts_edit_draft, soclo_posts_cancel and soclo_post_publish.

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 prerequisites for invocation: the publish:post scope, and the explicit instruction to get postId from soclo_posts_list. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. for already-published posts or for editing content), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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