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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: never publishes immediately, team approval remains mandatory, the returned approval state must be inspected, credits are reserved on success, and insufficient credits leave the post unscheduled. These are exactly the side-effect and failure-mode facts annotations cannot express.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the gating condition, each carrying a distinct fact (approval, non-publication, idempotency, credits, exclusions). Slightly dense, but no sentence is redundant.

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 not be described, yet the description still points the agent at the returned approval state. Combined with the credit, approval, and idempotency disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the load, and it does for three of four params: scheduledAt must be an explicit future time, idempotencyKey should be reused on retries, and 'expected revision' hints at optimistic-concurrency semantics. postId and the revision mechanics are still only lightly covered, so it falls short of fully compensating.

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 and resource - scheduling a post's expected revision at an explicit future time - plus a scope constraint ('only when the user requests scheduling'). It distinguishes itself conceptually from drafts and pending approvals, but never names a specific sibling tool (e.g. create_draft, update_draft) to route against.

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 a clear precondition: only invoke when the user explicitly requests scheduling. The closing sentence clarifies what this tool is not for (drafts, pending approvals), which implicitly routes elsewhere. No named alternative tool is offered, so exclusion is inferential rather than explicit.

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