Move post in queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: that it is scheduling-only with no content re-validation, that explicit confirmation is required, and that 'provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200.' These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the description stays tight, with each clause carrying information (alternative, confirmation, error semantics). Minor waste remains – 'Current Buffer GraphQL movePostInQueue' adds little for an agent, and there is a stray double period.

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 destructive mutation tool, the description, annotations, and 100% schema coverage together give the agent what it needs: purpose, alternative, confirmation requirement, and error behavior. No output schema is present, but the return shape is not critical for this action. Nearly complete, with only return/effect details unstated.

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 id, fields, confirm, position, payload, etc. The description only lightly reinforces this ('Use upstream fields to bound data', confirmation requirement) without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource – 'Move a queued post to the top or bottom of its channel's queue' – leaving no ambiguity about the operation. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling edit_post by noting it is a 'scheduling-only operation that never re-validates the post's content.' An agent can distinguish this from the many other post tools without opening the 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?

It names the alternative ('Unlike editPost') and gives the discriminating condition (scheduling-only, no content re-validation), plus a prerequisite ('Requires explicit confirmation'). This is clear routing context, though it stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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