Edit scheduled post

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries real weight here: it discloses that the job ID and media survive, that only pending posts are editable, that unlisted platforms keep their text, and that youtubePublishAt applies only to private videos and is cleared with null. It does not say what error or state change occurs when editing an already-published or in-flight job, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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-loaded with the operation and its key invariant, then the parameter branches in a logical order; nearly every clause carries information. The single-paragraph, clause-chained formatting makes it denser than it needs to be, and the inline JSON example, while useful, crowds the sentence flow.

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?

With an output schema present, the description rightly skips return values, and it covers the nested platformContent object and the multi-purpose scheduling fields thoroughly for a 7-parameter mutation. The remaining gap is the failure mode when the target post is not pending, which an agent would want before invoking a destructive edit.

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 already 86%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the scope semantics of title/caption (all platforms) versus platformContent (only listed keys, with a concrete JSON example), and by characterizing youtubePublishAt as native YouTube scheduling that sets or clears the value. It adds little about jobId, timezone, or scheduledDate beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Edit a pending scheduled post in place") and adds the distinguishing constraint that the job ID and media are preserved, which separates it from a delete-and-recreate flow. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (list_scheduled, cancel_scheduled, retry_post) it might be confused with, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from names alone.

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 clearly states the two mutually exclusive edit paths with the condition that selects each: title/caption rewrite every platform, while platformContent targets only listed platforms. It also sets an explicit exclusion ("First comments cannot be edited on a pending post"), but gives no guidance about published vs pending posts or when to prefer unpublish_post/retry_post over editing.

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