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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: posts are spaced out over time and go through the standard publishing pipeline. This explains the side effects implied by openWorldHint and readOnlyHint=false, though it does not detail error cases or confirmation behavior.

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 description is two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes only relevant detail about spacing and the pipeline. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 simple one-parameter tool with informative annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and pipeline context. It does not explain return values or edge cases like an empty plan, but no output schema exists to set a higher expectation.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter planId, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming it refers to the autopilot plan. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action (schedule) and the resource (all approved posts in an autopilot plan), distinguishing it from sibling tools like autopilot_generate_plan or autopilot_approve_plan. The second sentence clarifies the scheduling behavior.

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?

The phrase 'approved posts' provides clear context that the plan must be approved before execution, implying a sequential relationship with autopilot_approve_plan. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives like bulk_schedule.

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