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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/non-idempotent/open-world behavior, and the description adds real context on top: token resolution before sending, supported template placeholders, the confirm-with-user requirement, and the scope/plan prerequisite. It still does not describe failure modes or rate limits, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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?

Information is front-loaded with the scope tag and the core action, and there is no filler text. The single dense block with bracket tags, parenthetical placeholders and the wrapped-endpoint note is slightly cluttered but every clause carries useful content.

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 2-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers timing, template placeholders, user confirmation, auth scope and plan requirements. The only meaningful omissions are guidance for id/delayMinutes and any limits on comment volume, which the schema's maxItems partially covers.

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 0% for the top-level parameters (id, comments) and platform/text/delayMinutes lack descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining the {{postUrl}}/{{parentPostUrl}}/{{youtubeUrl}} template syntax for comment text and referencing sendAt, but says nothing about id, delayMinutes, maxItems, or accountId defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Schedules comments on a post') plus the timing semantics ('sent once after it is live'), which clearly separates it from the read-only sibling list_post_comments. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives clear context for use — comments are scheduled after the post is live, sentAt is optional, and the agent must 'Confirm with the user first' — plus the prerequisite of the `publish` scope or admin on Agency plan or higher. No explicit when-not condition or named alternative is provided.

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