Reschedule post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a mutation ('move') but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the post must already be scheduled), whether the old schedule is overwritten, if the operation is reversible, or what the response contains. This is too thin for a mutation tool.

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 one-sentence description is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It efficiently states the essential operation and the relevant format hint.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools in the same domain, this description is too sparse. It does not explain the effect on existing schedules, differences from update_post, or expected return values, leaving an agent without the context needed to invoke it confidently.

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 50%: scheduledAt is described, postId is not. The description adds the phrase 'target time', which conceptually links postId and scheduledAt, but it does not explain postId's meaning or add details beyond the schema's 'New ISO 8601 datetime'. It is adequate but not compensatory.

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 clearly states the action ('Move') and the resource ('a post's target time'), making it obvious that this tool changes a post's scheduled time. It is distinguishable from 'schedule_post' primarily by the name and the word 'move', though it does not explicitly say 'existing post' or 'replaces the current schedule'.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Given siblings like schedule_post, update_post, and retry_post, an agent cannot tell whether reschedule_post is for altering an existing scheduled post or for replacing a failed schedule, and no exclusions or preferred contexts are stated.

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