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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context: it publishes to live social accounts, requires the `publish` scope or admin on Agency plan or higher, and returns failures in a `rejected` field rather than erroring. It does not say whether partial success is possible or how to recover rejected items.

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?

Front-loads the mutation and its consequence, then the input choice, then failure modes, then permissions — a sensible ordering. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the bracketed scope banner and API route note add bulk but are informative.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, when items are rejected, and what authorization is needed. The remaining gap is the unexplained required `id` and the `brandId` parameter.

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% at the top level, so the description must carry the burden and it only partially does. The `contentIds` vs `items` distinction is genuinely valuable, but the required `id` (the queue id) and `brandId` are never explained, and the description does not clarify how `items` interacts with `contentIds` if both are sent.

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 and resource ("Appends drafts (content ids) to the end of a queue") plus the consequential effect ("they will be BOOKED AND POSTED on the queue's schedule"). That effect clause separates it from reorder_queue_items, remove_queue_item and queue_item_action without the agent needing to open another 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?

Gives clear input-selection guidance ("Use `contentIds`, or `items` for a per-item YouTube title or platforms") and enumerates the rejection conditions — other brand, duplicates, archived, no video for a video platform — so the agent knows what will silently fail. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives for correcting or reordering already-queued items.

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