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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: existing times are left unchanged and already-queued posts keep their times, which clarifies side effects.

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 four short sentences and front-loads the core action. Each sentence adds useful information about format, timezone, and mutation behavior without 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?

Given the complete input schema, annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description supplies enough context to call the tool correctly: purpose, time format, timezone source, duplicate handling, and effect on queued posts. No critical gap remains.

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 the schema already documents the parameters well. The description still adds meaningful interpretation by specifying that times are in the workspace's posting time zone, which is not stated in 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: adding posting times to one channel's weekly queue schedule. It clearly distinguishes this mutation from related siblings such as remove_queue_times and list_queue_schedule by naming the exact operation and scope.

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?

The context is clear: use this to add recurring posting times to a channel's weekly queue. It also points to list_queue_schedule for the workspace posting time zone and notes duplicate-time behavior, though it does not explicitly name when to prefer queue_post or remove_queue_times.

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