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

Adds real value beyond annotations: it discloses that approval/media/state gates still apply and how to recover from an ambiguous failure. However, annotations mark this destructiveHint=true and the description never explains what destructiveness means here (e.g., whether prior approvals or scheduled metadata are invalidated).

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?

Four tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action, then the constraints, then verification, then retry. Every sentence carries operational 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly directs verification to company_get_post, and all four required parameters are schema-documented. The remaining gap is the post-mutation state outcome (approval status, what a success response conveys).

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 100% and the schema already explains postGroupId, workspaceId, scheduledTime format, and idempotencyKey rules. The description only adds the 'user's agreed UTC instant' intent, which is minor incremental meaning over a fully documented schema.

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 ('Change the publishing time of a scheduled Agency post') plus the target semantics (UTC instant). It is distinguishable from company_schedule_post by the 'scheduled' qualifier, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 clear operating context: existing permission/state/media/approval checks still apply, verify the result with company_get_post, and retry with the identical body on a lost response. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with company_schedule_post or company_unschedule_post.

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