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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and the description corroborates with 'Nothing is published or deleted', which is real value rather than repetition. It also discloses a non-obvious refusal path (pending posts) and that the note becomes visible with the post. It does not cover permissions or whether rejecting affects scheduling history, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: the action and result first, the non-destructive consequence and follow-on tools second, the pending-post exclusion last. No filler and the core effect is 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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers outcome, side-effect safety, exclusions and alternatives. The only gap is the return value or confirmation shape, which is minor since no output schema exists.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the note is optional, explains why, and is 'shown with the post', i.e. externally visible. The post_id semantics (queued post only) are implied by the purpose statement.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource ('take a queued post out of the queue') and states the resulting state ('turn it back into a draft'), which separates it from add_feed, approve_queued_post, delete_post and update_post without needing any schema inspection.

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 both when to use it and explicit when-nots: pending posts are refused because a person approves or rejects them, and 'to withdraw a post you made, delete it.' It also names the correct follow-on tools (update_post to edit and re-queue, delete_post to discard).

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