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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds real behavioral context: the tool changes state back to draft, and a draft is a no-op. It does not mention auth/permission requirements (e.g., label vs artist connection) or whether the change is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words; the primary action is front-loaded. The closing sentence 'A draft is already kept' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, which costs a little clarity.

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?

A simple state-transition tool with full schema coverage and annotations, and no output schema to explain. What is missing is the return behavior (does it return the post/draft?) and the failure conditions when the post is not in an eligible state, which would materially help an agent call it confidently.

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%, so the schema already documents artist, post_id, and idempotency_key in detail. The description adds a faint constraint (the post must be skipped/failed) but no format or identifier guidance beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb+resource transformation: take a skipped post or one that failed to send and bring it back as a draft. The trailing clause 'A draft is already kept' clarifies scope by excluding drafts, and the reversal nature distinguishes it from update_post or add_post. It does not, however, name the sibling it reverses (skip_post) 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?

The description implies when to use it by naming the two eligible post states (skipped, or did-not-go-out), which is useful context. But it never names the counterpart tool (skip_post) or states exclusions such as posts that are already scheduled or already a draft beyond the implicit hint.

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