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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that the edit mutates the queued delivery snapshot rather than a shared draft, that a confirmation step is expected, and that an exact current revision is required. The unsupported-schedule list adds behavioral boundaries the annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the capability and immediately followed by the preview/mutation distinction and the unsupported scope. No filler, though the final unsupported-list sentence packs four conditions that could be separated for scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the mutation semantics, default behavior, and unsupported scope are covered. The main omission is the consequence of a stale expectedRevision, which matters for an idempotent-but-guarded mutation.

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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does for id (scheduled Note id), expectedRevision (exact current revision), and apply (preview vs replacement). It does not explain what happens on a revision mismatch or the date-time format, leaving one gap.

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 pair and resource: preview or replace the text of a queued LinkedIn post, scoped to text-only, untouched schedules. It implicitly separates itself from the broader amend_scheduled_item and from draft-editing siblings by narrowing to queued delivery snapshots, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit routing: apply defaults to false for a non-mutating preview, apply=true performs the replacement only after client-side confirmation. It also states when the tool is NOT usable (provider-accepted, in-flight, media-bearing, Article schedules), which is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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