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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds real context beyond that: per-channel daily caps and spacing, the deterministic earliest-slot-after-`at` selection, permission gating, and skip reasons. It stops short of stating whether the schedule can be undone or what happens if post_ids are already scheduled.

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?

Action comes first, then constraints, then return behavior — well front-loaded with no filler. The parenthetical "(or at `at`)" is slightly awkward, and one sentence carries several distinct constraints at once.

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?

Dense, gated mutation tool with no output schema, yet the description covers timing, caps, permission gating, skip behavior and a return summary. Only minor gaps remain (fate of already-scheduled or invalid ids).

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 50%: `at` is well documented in the schema, while `post_ids` is undocumented there and only indirectly implied by "schedule draft posts" (i.e., the ids must reference drafts). A modest addition over the schema, not full compensation.

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 verb (schedule) and resource (draft posts in the customer's Postiz) with the selection rule for timing. It is clearly distinct from siblings like amplify_edit_post or amplify_list_posts, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ("Only works if the customer allowed agents to schedule") and an exclusion rule (posts with claims to confirm or warnings are skipped for owner review). This tells the agent when the tool will and won't act, but it doesn't route to a sibling when the precondition fails.

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