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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructve operation; the description adds that it moves the existing post and requires a future date, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose error behavior, timezone handling, or external side effects despite openWorldHint=true.

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 concise sentence with the action verb front-loaded, no redundant information, and every word contributes to meaning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with annotations covering read-only/destructive flags, the description covers the main behavior adequately. It remains incomplete on exact parameter formats, return behavior, and any validation/failure semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps id to 'existing post' and scheduledFor to 'future publication date'. It does not explain id format, date format, timezone, or required constraints between the two 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 uses a specific verb ('Move'), a clear resource ('an existing post'), and an explicit outcome ('to a new future publication date'). It clearly separates this from create/delete/list operations, but does not distinguish it from the similarly named update_post 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are referenced. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose statement rather than being explicitly stated.

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