Reschedule or restatus posts

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds useful behavior: per-post failures are reported individually, and it clarifies conditional parameter requirements for each action. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is three compact sentences with no filler. The bulk scope, action requirements, failure behavior, and removal alternative are all front-loaded.

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 bulk mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the key operational details: max batch size, conditional parameters, and per-post failure reporting. It could say more about the response shape or required permissions, but annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining action values and conditional requirements: reschedule needs scheduledAt, status accepts draft or scheduled. It does not describe the ids array format beyond schema limits, but covers the key conditional 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?

The description states a specific bulk operation on posts, names the two supported actions (reschedule, status), and clarifies the 25-post limit. It distinguishes itself from per-post tools by saying 'up to 25 posts' and from delete_post for removal.

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 gives clear context for bulk rescheduling/statusing and explicitly states the alternative for removal: 'use delete_post on each draft.' It does not explicitly compare against update_post or create_posts, but the bulk scope is implied clearly.

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