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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive mutation, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the post returns to drafts and is not deleted. It does not cover edge cases such as what happens if the post is not currently scheduled, but it is substantially transparent for the operation.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the outcome. There is no wasted language, and the key non-destructive guarantee appears immediately.

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 one-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what state change occurs, and that nothing is deleted. No output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required.

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?

The schema fully documents the single required parameter ('id' with description 'Post id'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 ('Take a scheduled post back off the queue') and immediately clarifies the resulting state ('returns to drafts'). It also distinguishes itself from a destructive sibling like delete_post by explicitly saying 'nothing is deleted'.

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 description provides clear context: it is for scheduled posts and moves them back to drafts. It does not name alternatives such as delete_post or pause_queue explicitly, but the 'nothing is deleted' contrast gives useful usage context without exclusions.

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