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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the crucial detail of what destruction means here: "now" publishes immediately and "draft" removes the post from the schedule. It also adds a real operational caution about confirming immediate publication, which is context the annotations cannot convey. It is slightly thin on what happens to queue positions or the response, 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint followed by value semantics and the one safety caution. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter mutation with destructive semantics and no output schema, the description covers scope, accepted values, side effects, and the confirmation requirement. Only the return behavior (what the updated post looks like) is left unstated, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters are documented, but the description goes further by explaining the side effects of the "now" and "draft" values rather than just listing them. It also specifies that a date-time needs a time zone, which sharpens the accepted format beyond the schema wording.

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 specific verb and resource, "Change only the publish time of a draft or scheduled post," and the word "only" carves out a narrow scope that separates it from a general update tool. An agent can tell this is a time-only reschedule, not a general edit.

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 concrete routing guidance for each accepted value — next_slot for the queue, ISO 8601 with a time zone, now for immediate publish, draft to unschedule — plus an explicit confirmation instruction before using "now". It does not name a sibling (e.g., update_post) as the alternative for content edits, but the scope constraint implies it.

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