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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing concrete side effects (writes to the local YAML schedule store, external HTTP calls for immediately-published variants), a credential requirement via profile_name, and the precise idempotency key (content.id, channel).

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then side effects, then routing to siblings. Every sentence carries distinct information — no filler or repetition of the title.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, prerequisites, idempotency, and sibling routing. 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 the schema already documents content, variants, channel, schedule_at, extras, etc. in detail. The description restates the schedule_at/immediate split but adds no format or override semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('enqueue channel variants with schedule_at for future publishing') and immediately clarifies the boundary condition that variants lacking schedule_at publish immediately. This distinguishes it cleanly from post_publish and post_drain 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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use ('any variant needs a future publish time') and names both alternatives with their selecting conditions: post_publish for all-immediate delivery and post_drain to process the scheduled queue later. Nothing is left to inference.

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