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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds meaningful scope beyond them by bounding the destruction (editable-only) and stating the refusal conditions. Wording like 'uncertain delivery' is imprecise, keeping it from 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?

Two sentences with the action stated first and the guardrail second; every clause carries information. Slightly awkward phrasing but no filler.

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 no explanation, and the annotations plus description cover the safety profile. However, with 0% param documentation and no explanation of the idempotency contract, an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently in edge cases.

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 0% across three required params. The description only incidentally echoes 'revision' via 'post revision' and says nothing about postId or idempotencyKey semantics, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('the expected post revision'), which separates it from cancel_research and the delete_* siblings. The qualifier 'expected' is vague, but the core action is identifiable.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('only while safely editable') and an explicit exclusion ('never cancels a post already publishing or with uncertain delivery'). It doesn't name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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