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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not the sole carrier of the safety profile. It still adds real value by disclosing the required authorization scope and the immediacy of the push ('NOW'), which the annotations do not convey.

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 short sentences with the action and timing front-loaded in caps and the requirement appended. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 explained, and the auth scope plus the immediate, mutating nature are covered. It could note irreversibility or what happens to the queue state on failure, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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?

There is only one parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail for the id, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('pushes a queued post to the platform immediately'), and the word 'queued' implies the post already exists in a pre-publish state, which helps separate it from posts_create. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation from posts_approve and posts_create is left to 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?

The precondition 'Needs the publish scope' and 'queued post' imply the tool applies to already-approved posts, giving usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as posts_approve or posts_create.

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