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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides some constraints (pending scheduled post, future time, ISO datetime) but does not mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or the outcome of the operation, resulting in partial transparency.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite the simple schema and lack of annotations, the description omits important context such as what happens if the post is not pending, what the response indicates, or any prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for a tool with no output schema or annotation support.

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?

The input schema only defines types for id and scheduledAt with no descriptions. The description clarifies scheduledAt as an ISO datetime for a future time and implies id refers to a pending scheduled post, adding meaningful semantics beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Move') and the resource ('pending scheduled post'), and specifies the target state ('new future time (ISO datetime)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_post and update_post_content.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or references to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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