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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the key behavioral fact that this mutates an existing post's publication date to a future time. It doesn't resort to tautology or contradict the annotations, and provides enough context beyond the structured 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?

A single, effective sentence that delivers the core semantics upfront with no filler. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. The only meaningful gaps are the exact format for scheduledFor and whether rescheduling is limited to already-scheduled posts, but these are minor for typical usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'existing post' to id and 'new future publication date' to scheduledFor, but doesn't specify the required date format (e.g., ISO 8601) or validate constraints. The description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but not enough for full clarity.

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 clearly states the action ('Move'), the resource ('existing post'), and the target state ('new future publication date'). This distinguishes it from create_post and delete_post, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'existing post' clearly signals when to use this tool, and 'new future publication date' implies the target scheduling window. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide between this and create/delete.

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