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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses real behavior: the story remains in drafts until the scheduled time, the confirmation toggle, the external-visibility warning, and the required Cotlet API key scope. This is genuine added context for a mutation tool.

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 lead sentences 'Publish a draft at a set time. Schedules a draft.' are duplicative, restating the same operation twice. The remaining sentences about confirmation and API keys are useful but somewhat loosely ordered rather than tightly front-loaded.

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 2-parameter scheduling tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, its state behavior, confirmation requirements, and auth scope. The main missing piece is explicit routing against the publish/create_draft siblings, but otherwise it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so both parameters (story_id, publish_at) are already fully documented in the schema, including that story_id comes from list_stories and publish_at is ISO 8601 with time zone. The description adds nothing parameter-level, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Publish a draft', 'Schedules a draft') with clear scope ('at a set time'), and the note that 'the story stays in your drafts until then' distinguishes it semantically from an immediate-publish tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling medium_publish_story, so an agent must infer the contrast rather than being routed to it.

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 gives usage-relevant context ('By default you confirm each call; you can switch that off', 'confirm with the user before each call'), which is meaningful operational guidance. However, it never states when to choose scheduling over medium_publish_story or medium_create_draft, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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