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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the operation is 'Irreversible' and demands 'confirm: true,' which are critical guardrails for a mutating action. It doesn't elaborate on what 'queue' means operationally (e.g., when delivery happens), but the irreversibility warning is strong and useful.

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 one compact sentence that packs purpose, behavior, and a usage constraint into minimal words. Every phrase earns its place, and the core intent 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it states the operation, the irreversibility, and the required confirm flag. It lacks guidance on failure cases, return values, or alternative routing to schedule_post, but an agent can likely invoke it correctly with the given information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It only mentions that confirm must be true, which adds a small semantic constraint, but variant_id is completely unspecified. This does not meaningfully help an agent understand what identifiers are valid or how the parameters interact.

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 specifies a concrete verb+resource: 'Queue a variant for immediate delivery,' which clearly distinguishes it from planning or scheduling tools like plan_week and schedule_post. The 'immediate delivery' scope adds useful precision. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it loses one point on differentiation.

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?

'Immediate delivery' clearly signals the use case: publish now rather than schedule later. 'requires confirm: true' states a mandatory precondition for invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool such as schedule_post, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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