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

Annotations already convey that the tool mutates state (readOnlyHint=false) and is idempotent, so the description does not need to restate those. The added fact that existing publication times are untouched is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior or whether omitted parameters are preserved.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states when to use the tool, the second states an important boundary. The key trigger is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover the mutation/idempotence profile, the description covers the main decision points: when to use, what it changes, and what it explicitly does not change. It could mention that omitting a parameter leaves that preference untouched, but the optional-parameter schema plus the wording makes this reasonably inferable.

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 low (33%), and the description compensates by mapping each parameter to plain language: time zone, weekly publication target, and content reminder preference. It does not explain cadencePerWeek's 0-70 range, the meaning of 0, or that all parameters are optional independent updates, so it adds some but not full semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('change') and names the exact resources: time zone, weekly publication target, and content reminder preference. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from scheduling tools by stating 'Does not change existing publication times.' An agent can tell what this tool is and is not for.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use when the author asks to change...') and a clear exclusion ('Does not change existing publication times'). It does not name alternative sibling tools like reschedule_publication or schedule_post, but the when/when-not guidance is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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