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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world call), it discloses quota consumption (posts-per-week allowance, trial article limit), a failure mode (frozen or ended subscription is refused), latency (a few minutes), the real publish outcome (still publishes on its publish date, or lands as a CMS draft when post-as-draft is on), and the return shape and polling path. That is rich disclosure the annotations cannot supply.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct load: action and scope first, then quota/refusal constraints, then timing, outcome, and the polling next step. Nothing is repeated from the name or schema, and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers what an agent needs: the queued result ('status "queued" with kind "article"'), the async nature and duration, the get_job polling path, quota effects, and the subscription-refusal failure case. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter mutation.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that ids are plan entries and that multiple are allowed, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Queue one or more plan entries to be written immediately') and scopes the effect ('instead of waiting for their publish dates'). An agent can distinguish it from write_from_outline, reschedule_article, and publish_draft without opening a schema, because it operates on already-planned entries.

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 gives clear context for use ('written immediately instead of waiting for their publish dates') and points to the follow-up tool (get_job). It does not name exclusions or explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives such as reschedule_article or publish_draft, so it falls short of a 5.

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