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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'PATCH update' aligns with mutation. It adds 'Public API preview' indicating stability, but does not disclose permissions, whether the update is partial, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

One sentence, directly states the purpose with no filler. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

With 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. The description omits return value, idempotency requirements, and how the sparse parameters (body, query) work.

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 40%, and the description names three kinds of changes (caption, schedule, recycle plan) which loosely map to payload, scheduled_at, and recycle. However, it does not explain required idempotency_key, workspace_id behavior, or the body/query override semantics.

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 ('update') and resource ('scheduled post') and lists the updateable fields (caption, schedule, recycle plan), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_scheduled_post, get_scheduled_post, and cancel_scheduled_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 description implies it is for modifying existing scheduled posts but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No reference to sibling tools or conditions is given.

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