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

Annotations cover safety (destructive, non-read-only, idempotent), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the post returns to DRAFT, its date is retained only as a suggestion, and nothing is published. That is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs for a state-mutating call.

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 sentences, the state transition front-loaded, then the usage note and the sibling exclusion. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an idempotent, no-output-schema mutation this is largely complete: state outcome, campaign use case, and the published-post exclusion are all present. Return-shape/pagination details are absent but low-value for this action.

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 50%: idempotencyKey is fully documented in the schema while postId has no description. The description doesn't clarify postId semantics (e.g., that it must reference a scheduled post), relying on the self-evident name. Baseline 3 for a schema doing most of the work.

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 (unschedule) and resource (post), plus the exact state transition (SCHEDULED/pending-approval → DRAFT). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming unpublish_post as the tool for the published case, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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 explicit when-to-use ("pause or cancel a campaign") and a clear when-not with the alternative ("A post already published is not affected (use unpublish_post...)"). The condition that selects the alternative is spelled out, leaving little to inference.

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