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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: it discloses that the call consumes one of the user's AI credits, that existing images and unattached parts are preserved, and that the `scenes` mode returns three candidate image ideas that still need make_plan_post_image. That is exactly the cost and side-effect information the 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?

Front-loads the action and cost, then walks the enum; almost every clause carries information. The `scenes` parenthetical is long and stacks several facts (three ideas, carousel option, image-tool follow-up), making that sentence heavier than needed.

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?

No output schema exists, and for a rewrite-with-AI mutation the definition covers cost, preservation, mode semantics, and the alternative tool. The one remaining gap is what the agent gets back after the rewrite (a new draft version? pending approval?), which an agent might want before chaining further calls.

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 coverage is only 33% and the `part` enum is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates fully by defining all four values with their preservation semantics. It also frames `instruction` as the user's own words and notes that offers/facts supplied there are treated as true; only `task_id` is left to inference, which is the reason this isn't a 5.

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 (rewrite one post awaiting review) with the engine named (Sociro's AI Planner), and immediately distinguishes itself from update_plan_post, which handles small self-serve edits. An agent can tell what it does and what it does not do without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing to the alternative is given ('For a small change you can make yourself, use update_plan_post instead'), and each `part` value is described with what changes and what stays, so the agent knows exactly which mode to pick. It also names the downstream tool (make_plan_post_image) for the `scenes` branch.

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