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

Annotations already disclose idempotent=true, destructiveHint=true, and openWorld=false, lowering the burden. The description adds the useful scope constraint "Does not change its content," but says nothing about what happens if the publication is no longer pending or what the destructive hint implies for the prior schedule.

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 tight sentences: when-to-use first, then required inputs, then a scope boundary. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The two params are covered and the non-content-change scope is stated. Minor gaps remain around preconditions (must the publication still be pending?) and the destructive semantics, but overall it is complete enough to invoke.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameters. It names publicationId and clarifies that scheduledAt must be a concrete ISO date with a UTC offset, which is format detail the bare date-time schema does not convey. This meaningfully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action (change date/time) on a specific resource (one pending publication), which naturally distinguishes it from schedule_post and cancel_publication. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the verb+resource+scope combination is unambiguous.

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?

"Use when the author asks to change the date or time of one pending publication" gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly limits it to pending items. It does not name alternatives (schedule_post, cancel_publication) or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of the top band.

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