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

Adds context beyond annotations by stating it 'Creates a new scheduled post', clarifying that this is a mutating operation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false). Does not mention whether the dead letter entry is removed, but given annotations (destructiveHint=false), this is acceptable.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every phrase adds value, clearly stating action and result.

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 relatively simple mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description sufficiently explains what happens. It lacks details about return values, but no output schema is present, so this is not a major gap.

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% with both parameters described adequately. The tool description mentions 'dead letter entry' which aligns with deadLetterId, but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Requeue' targeting 'dead letter post' and explains the outcome ('Creates a new scheduled post from the dead letter entry'). This distinguishes it from siblings like retry_scheduled_post by specifying a new scheduled post is created.

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 description implies usage when a dead letter post exists and needs another publishing attempt, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as retry_scheduled_post or list_dead_letter. No clear when/when-not guidance is provided.

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