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

Annotations already flag the write (readOnlyHint=false), destructive and idempotent profile, but the description adds material facts the annotations cannot convey: workspace credits are consumed automatically, insufficient credits leave the campaign unscheduled, facts/revisions/provider validation are rechecked, and success must be reported only from returned post statuses. It also closes with 'Never publishes immediately', which is exactly the kind of scope constraint an agent needs to avoid misfiring.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and precondition, then tight sentences that each add a distinct constraint. Dense but every sentence earns its place; 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?

The output schema already covers return shape, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining gaps are exactly what the description fills: authorization path, credit behavior, revalidation, and the no-immediate-publish guarantee. For a destructive scheduling tool, this is complete enough to call safely.

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%, so the description must carry semantics for brandId, campaignId, snapshot and idempotencyKey. It defines the snapshot constraint emphatically ('this exact current snapshot', 'reviews the future times') and implies the required identity/idempotency fields, though it never explains formats or what a valid idempotencyKey is, so it does not fully 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 (schedule) and resource (current campaign snapshot), and explicitly distinguishes itself from immediate publishing with 'Never publishes immediately'. It contrasts with sibling activation tools only implicitly; it never says how it differs from schedule_post or activate_*_automation.

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?

'only when the user requests scheduling' gives an explicit condition for use and rules out autonomous scheduling. It also states the owner-approval path and that mandatory member review still applies. It never names a sibling alternative, so the guidance is contextual but not comparative.

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