Move a pending post to a new scheduled time, or post it immediately by passing the current time. Platform rules for the new time are checked again.
Move a pending post to a new time. Passing the current time posts it right away. The platform's rules for that time are checked again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The post id, from list_scheduled_posts | |
| scheduledFor | Yes | ISO 8601 timestamp for the new time |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds two things they don't: that platform rules for the new time are re-validated, and that passing the current time triggers immediate publishing. The immediate-publish side effect is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the two behavioral notes. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.
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 2-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the action, the immediate-publish case, and re-validation. It stops short of saying what happens when the rules check fails or that only pending (not published/failed) posts qualify.
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 both parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the semantic that scheduledFor equal to now means publish-now, which is a small but real addition beyond the schema text.
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 ("Move a pending post to a new time") and constrains the target to pending posts, which separates it from update_post and schedule_post. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the note about passing the current time implicitly handles the overlap with publish_post_now.
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?
"Pending post" implies the eligible state and the current-time note gives one concrete usage pattern, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. publish_post_now for immediate publishing, update_post for non-time edits). Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.