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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior by naming the exceptions ('pinned, near-term and provider-held posts retain their times') and disclosing that events beyond the current page are affected. It still does not say whether the shift can be undone, whether it applies per-connection, or what failures look like, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 primary action and followed immediately by the exclusion rule. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title.

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 destructive, open-world bulk mutation with nested arguments and an output schema, the description covers the key risk (which posts are and aren't shifted) but leaves open how large the shift is, whether per-connection scoping changes the result, and what approval context the proposal id requires. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 50%: fromDay, timezone, connectionIds, publication_proposal_id and expected_catalog_version are documented in the schema, while work_id, request_key, and especially the numeric 'days' offset are not. The description hints at the fromDay anchor ('from a day onward') but never explains the magnitude or direction of 'days' (1-30) or how connectionIds limits scope, so it does not compensate for the gap. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Shift all eligible posts from a day onward" names a specific verb (shift) and resource (posts on the calendar), and the scope note "including events beyond the current page" rules out a page-local interpretation. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as native.social_move_posts, but it never names an alternative, so differentiation must be inferred from the verb.

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 implies when to use it (bulk rescheduling of a calendar span) through the words 'all eligible posts from a day onward', but gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not point to native.social_move_posts or native.social_schedule_draft for narrower moves. The eligibility carve-out helps, but the agent must guess at the boundary with sibling scheduling tools.

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