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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the required "Publish" permission on the plan and the downstream effect that an attached agent will autonomously draft posts. It does not address idempotency semantics (annotation says idempotentHint=false) or what happens to fields omitted from a call.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operative settings and followed by scope disambiguation, side-effect warning, and permission requirement. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly crowded with backtick cross-references.

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 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers scope, side effects, prerequisites, and sibling boundaries. Only the partial-update semantics and response are unstated, which are secondary.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: `agentId` is framed as enabling autonomous drafting (with a caution), and `approval` is framed as a publishing policy rather than a bare boolean. Minor gap: no guidance on partial updates or unsupplied fields.

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?

Names the exact verb and the three settings it controls (timezone, auto-draft CONTENT agent, approval policy), then explicitly scopes it as account-wide policy. It directly distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling `post_schedule_set`, so an agent can pick between them 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?

Explicitly routes time-related scheduling to `post_schedule_set` and agent configuration to `agent_upsert`, leaving no ambiguity about boundaries. It also adds a conditional instruction ('confirm with the user first') for the risky part of the operation.

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