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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds a meaningful state precondition and failure mode ('still-queued', 'fails if already posted or failed') beyond those annotations, though it does not describe permissions, return behavior, or what exactly is changed.

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 short sentences with no waste, and the core action and constraint are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with rich annotations and schema-provided formats, the description covers purpose, precondition, and failure mode. The missing parameter semantics are penalized separately, and no output schema means return values need not be described here.

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% and the description only maps 'post' to postId and 'new time' to scheduledFor. It adds no format, timezone, or constraint detail beyond the property names, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 ('Move') and resource ('a still-queued post') with a clear outcome ('to a new time'). The 'still-queued' qualifier distinguishes it from retry_failed_post and cancel_scheduled_post, so an agent can identify the correct operation 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?

It gives a clear use condition ('still-queued') and an explicit failure condition ('already posted or failed'), which effectively communicates when the tool applies and when it does not. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for failed posts, so it earns 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.