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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'without applying it' largely restates what structured data provides. The description adds the notion of a 'bounded' edit but never explains what the bound is (the schema enforces exactly one operation), nor does it mention the optimistic-concurrency semantics of expectedUpdatedAt or any rate/validation failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail assessed in other dimensions.

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 tool with a nested oneOf operation schema, a concurrency precondition, and a preview/commit workflow, one sentence is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the operation kinds, the concurrency guard, and the preview-then-apply relationship are all absent.

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% across three required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds essentially nothing. It never explains scheduleId, the expectedUpdatedAt optimistic-concurrency token (a non-obvious contract), or the four operation kinds and the single-operation limit — 'bounded' is the only faint gesture toward operations semantics.

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 pair ('Preview a ... publication schedule edit') and adds a scope qualifier ('bounded') plus the dry-run guarantee ('without applying it'). This distinguishes it from the other preview_* siblings (preview_idea_edit, preview_content_variant_edit, etc.) by resource, though it doesn't name the corresponding apply/schedule tool it precedes.

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 phrase 'without applying it' implies this is a validation/dry-run step before a real edit, but the description never says when to prefer it over the actual mutation path, nor does it name any alternative tool. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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