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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false): it discloses that the post stays attached to the campaign, that the change is reversible via keep_post, that scheduled posts are dequeued with the posting credit returned, and that the schedule permission is required. That is exactly the kind of state/auth context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: effect, reversibility plus sibling, then the scheduled-post and permission caveat. Front-loaded with the primary effect.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the mutation's semantics, reversibility, credit handling, and required permission. Together with annotations and the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 post_id, artist, and idempotency_key are already fully documented in the schema; the description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Skip a post so it does not go out') with the precise effect stated, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling keep_post, which undoes it. An agent can tell skip_post from update_post/keep_post without opening any schema.

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?

It names the alternative (keep_post brings it back) and the condition that makes skipping consequential (a post already scheduled is pulled from the queue). It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use cases, e.g. whether this applies to drafts vs scheduled posts only.

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