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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds behavior beyond that: revisions must be read first (optimistic concurrency), and scheduled/sent messages stay on their snapshots until apply_post_to_publication is invoked. It doesn't describe rate limits or error outcomes, but the snapshot semantics are genuinely useful context.

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: the trigger, the precondition, and the snapshot caveat are front-loaded and each earns its place. No restating of the name or schema.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the key behavioral caveats (revision, snapshots). What remains thin is the parameter-level meaning for a 7-param tool with only 14% schema coverage, though the field enumeration partially covers that.

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 only 14%, so the schema mostly does not document parameters. The description compensates by listing editable fields (title, buttons, attention flag) and mentioning the revision requirement, but leaves locale, documentJson provenance, and inlineButtons structure unexplained. This is adequate but incomplete against the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('changing a post's working content, title, buttons or attention flag') and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what gets edited. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool, but the fields and scope make its role distinct from update_post_draft or copy_post.

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 trigger is explicit ('Use when changing a post's working content'), and it names a precondition ('Read its revision first') plus an alternative pathway ('until apply_post_to_publication is requested'). No exclusions for when-not-to-use are given, keeping it short of a 5.

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