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

No annotations are present, so the description takes on the full burden. It clearly states this is a mutation, what can be changed, and the draft-to-scheduled conversion behavior. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but it does make the operational effects largely predictable.

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 three short, purpose-driven sentences with no filler. It opens with the primary action, then covers the conversion rule and allowed post_type values, each sentence adding necessary operational detail.

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 mutation with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough guidance to invoke the tool correctly: which fields can be updated, the allowed post_type values, and the conversion specifics. It does not cover error conditions or edge cases like published posts, but the stated scope keeps those gaps minor.

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 20% (only options has a schema description), so the description compensates by explaining the format of scheduled_at, the JSON-encoded nature of options, and the valid values for post_type. It does not explain content format or the meaning of omitting fields, but it covers the least obvious parameters.

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 names a specific action ('update'), a specific resource ('a scheduled or draft post'), and enumerates the changeable fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from create/delete/publish siblings by limiting scope to scheduled or draft posts, though it does not explicitly contrast it with any sibling.

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?

It gives concrete instructions: to convert a draft to a scheduled post, set post_type to scheduled and provide scheduled_at, and it constrains post_type to scheduled or draft. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., 'use publish_post_now instead'), but the usable scenario is clear enough.

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