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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the default scope is all days, and 'Posts already queued keep their times' clarifies the deletion is non-retroactive. It omits error behavior for times not present in the schedule, which would be useful for a destructive mutation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the default behavior, format, and side effect. No filler; every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is removed, from which scope, in what format, and what is left untouched. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if a specified time doesn't exist in the schedule or how multi-account workspaces are resolved.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value: the times are '24-hour HH:MM in the workspace's posting time zone' (schema only says 24-hour HH:MM), and the 'one channel' framing explains why platform/platform_account_ids matter. The days-omission behavior is restated with a useful analogy rather than just repeated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove posting times from one channel's weekly queue schedule') with explicit scope ('one channel', 'weekly'). It is immediately distinguishable from the inverse sibling add_queue_times and from list_queue_schedule.

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?

Explains the key decision point: omitting `days` removes the time from every day, analogous to the delete button on the Posting Schedule page. It doesn't explicitly name add_queue_times as the alternative, but the inverse relationship is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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