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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description supplies the reasoning the annotations cannot: rescheduling retires the earlier attempt so it can never publish, which explains the destruction. It also discloses the approval gate, the YouTube attestation obligation, and that the call itself constitutes the owner's certification.

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 core action and scope lead, followed by the reschedule case, the refusal rule, prerequisite lookups, and the YouTube requirement in descending priority. The quoted attestation line is long but is mandated verbatim text the agent must reproduce, so it earns its space.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, the side effect on prior schedules, failure-to-publish recovery, and a channel-specific compliance step. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 100% and every parameter's meaning, source tool, and constraints (approved status, ISO-8601 future datetime, channel match) are already in the schema. The description reinforces list_connections for connectionId but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource+scope: scheduling an already-approved post to a future time via a connected channel, plus the secondary reschedule case. It explicitly distinguishes itself from approve_post and denies doing approval itself, so an agent can separate it from the sibling tools without opening schemas.

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 explicit preconditions (post must be approved; call approve_post first), an explicit prerequisite lookup (call list_connections for connectionId), an explicit refusal case ('refuses any other post'), and a conditional workflow requirement for YouTube posts. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated.

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