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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description's job is to add nuance; 'A paused post stays paused' does exactly that by disclosing that rescheduling does not resume or change publication state. It still does not say whether already-published posts are rejected or what errors occur, keeping it below 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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence carries information about scope or parameter combination. The quoted 'best' token and slightly clipped phrasing are minor readability costs but not waste.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the crucial interaction between 'when' and per_network_times and the paused-state behavior. It omits error conditions and what the post's resulting status is, so it is not fully complete.

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. The description does add some meaning beyond the schema — that 'when' applies to every network and that per_network_times can be combined with 'when' for the remaining networks — but the ISO/timezone semantics and the 'best' value are already documented in the schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Moves a scheduled (or paused) post'), which clearly separates it from pause_post, resume_post, and delete_post. It does not explicitly name update_post or schedule_post as alternatives, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clearly explains when to use 'when' (all networks at one time) versus 'per_network_times' (different times per network) and how they combine, and explains that 'best' selects each network's best time. It never states when to use this tool instead of update_post or schedule_post, which is the main gap.

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