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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: mandatory team approval with an approval state to inspect, no immediate publish, idempotency-key reuse on retries, automatic credit reservation, and the failure mode when credits are insufficient (post left unscheduled). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive write.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. 'Never publishes immediately' slightly overlaps with the 'explicit future time' phrasing, and the credit/approval details make it dense, but every sentence carries actionable 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 4-param, all-required mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the invocation precondition, approval gate, credit precondition and failure mode, and idempotency, and points the agent at the returned approval state. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for three of four params: 'expected revision' implies an optimistic-concurrency match, 'explicit future time' constrains scheduledAt, and 'reuse the idempotency key on retries' explains idempotencyKey. postId is left to the obvious name, so it is not fully compensated.

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 ('Schedule the expected revision') plus the timing constraint ('at an explicit future time'), and contrasts with immediate publishing and with drafts/pending approvals. It does not name a sibling tool directly (e.g., schedule_campaign or a publish tool), so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 activation trigger ('only when the user requests scheduling') and an explicit exclusion ('drafts or pending approvals are not scheduled posts'), which is stronger than most definitions. However, it never names the alternative to use for immediate publishing or for campaign-level scheduling, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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