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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds context those annotations cannot express: the status precondition for editability and the side effect that changing scheduled_at moves the publish time. It does not restate what a destructive edit overwrites at the field level, but the schema handles tag/comment removal semantics.

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, front-loaded with the precondition and the editable fields, then the timing side effect and the editability boundary. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical lifecycle constraint and the timing side effect, and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. The one unaddressed question is the partial-update contract (whether omitted fields remain unchanged), which an agent must infer.

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 every parameter (post_id, tag_ids, content_text, scheduled_at, first_comment) is already fully documented, including the [] removal case and the ISO 8601 format example. The description only re-lists those fields in prose, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is 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 ("Edit a post") and scopes it precisely by lifecycle status: pending, queued or draft. It enumerates the four editable facets (text, scheduled time, first comment, tags), so an agent can tell this apart from schedule_post, cancel_post or revert_post. It stops short of naming a specific sibling, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Explicitly gives the when-not condition ("Published posts cannot be edited") and the qualifying statuses, plus a workflow rule to confirm new text/time with the user before changing publication timing. It does not point to alternatives such as cancel_post or revert_post for already-published posts, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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