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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavior: the platform publishes automatically on a 5-minute polling cadence, and confirm: true is required. It does not cover what happens with a past timestamp, failure/retry behavior, or permission requirements, which keeps 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by scheduling mechanics, the unschedule path, and the confirm precondition. No filler or repetition.

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?

Covers the operation's lifecycle and preconditions, which is substantial for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. However, for a 7-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, leaving the duplicate datetime fields and domain/site_id unexplained is a material completeness gap.

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 0% and the description only explains scheduledFor, leaving domain, site_id, id, and confirm semantics unstated while the schema contains three overlapping datetime fields (schedule_at, scheduledFor, scheduled_for). Because it names only one of three near-duplicate parameters, it risks steering the agent to a field without resolving the ambiguity.

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 ('Schedule a draft blog post for future publishing') and explicitly distinguishes itself from post_posts_by_id_publish by naming the immediate-publish alternative. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the 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?

Provides explicit routing: use this to schedule, patch status back to "draft" to unschedule, and use post_posts_by_id_publish to publish now. Each alternative and its triggering condition is named, leaving little to inference.

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