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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: patch semantics ('only the fields you pass change'), the destructive replacement of accounts, the scheduled_at null-to-draft transition, and the interactive panel output with an explicit instruction not to duplicate it. It omits auth/permission and error behavior, but covers the mutation's risky traits.

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?

The editability constraint is front-loaded, then field semantics, then output handling, all in compact sentences with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers editability, patch behavior, scheduling transitions, and result rendering. Only auth requirements, error handling, and caption/timezone semantics are absent, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 40% and caption, timezone, and postId are undocumented in both places. The description adds real meaning for scheduled_at (null converts to draft) and accounts (full replacement), partially compensating, but leaves several parameters unexplained.

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?

The description gives a specific verb (Edit) and resource (DRAFT or SCHEDULED post) and immediately states the scope boundary that published posts cannot be edited. This clearly separates it from siblings like create_post, publish_post, and delete_post.

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?

It states the precondition for use (only DRAFT or SCHEDULED posts) and the behavior of key fields, which tells the agent when this tool applies versus publish_post. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for the excluded case, so it falls short of a full routing statement.

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