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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a real side effect: the post is pulled from the network's queue and re-queued, with all target networks moving together. That is genuinely useful context for a mutation that annotations only label as non-destructive/idempotent. It does not cover failure modes, such as behavior on a published post or time validation errors.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then applicability, then side effects. Nothing is redundant and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the draft-vs-scheduled distinction and the requeue side effect. Only edge-case behavior (published posts, past timestamps) is left unaddressed.

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 by explaining that scheduledTime is a real queue time for scheduled posts versus only a 'suggested time' for drafts. The postId source from list_posts merely repeats the schema description.

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 ('Change when a post goes out') and immediately narrows scope to two object types: scheduled posts and drafts. The narrow scope implicitly separates it from edit_post (content changes) and create_draft, and it names list_posts as the id source.

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?

Clearly says the tool applies to calendar posts and to drafts (where the time is only a suggested time), and tells the agent to obtain the id from list_posts. It gives no explicit exclusion, e.g. that edit_post should be used for content changes or what to do for already-published posts.

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