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

Annotations cover idempotency (false), read-only (false) and open-world (false), so the description's job is to add mutation context — and it does: only unpublished queue entries can be touched, and a post can be removed outright. It does not disclose error behavior if the post has already gone out, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the audience and effect, then packs the three operations and their constraints into one tight sentence plus two short caveats. Slightly run-on in the main clause but no filler.

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?

Covers eligibility, source of the post reference, all four parameters and the confirmation workflow for a mutation tool with no output schema. Missing only failure semantics for already-published posts and multi-field combination behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does: post is a ref from my_agency_publisher, caption is a new caption, move_to is a new position with '1 = next', and remove pulls the post from the line. It still doesn't say whether caption/position changes can be combined in one call.

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verb set (change/remove) against a specific resource (a queued agency post), and scopes it to 'APPROVED AGENCY' and unpublished posts. An agent can distinguish it from queue_agency_post and my_agency_publisher without opening either 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?

Gives clear preconditions: approved agency, post ref obtained from my_agency_publisher, and only posts that haven't gone out yet, plus a 'Confirm with the agency first' workflow note. It does not name the sibling that creates a post instead, but the create-vs-edit split is strongly implied.

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