Move a queued post to the top or bottom of its channel's queue. Unlike editPost, this is a scheduling-only operation that never re-validates the post's content.

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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: explicit confirmation is required, content is never re-validated, and provider errors must be treated as failures even on HTTP 200.

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 first two sentences are well front-loaded, but the title text is duplicated verbatim (including a doubled period) and GraphQL/confirmation caveats are crammed into trailing clauses. Wasteful repetition of the title rather than efficient single-pass structure.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, confirmation gate, field-bounding behavior, and error semantics adequately; annotations already carry the destructive/idempotency signals. Return shape is unspecified but arguably unnecessary here.

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 all seven parameters, including the position enum and confirm flag, are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 queued post to the top or bottom of its channel's queue') and explicitly distinguishes itself from editPost by scope. An agent can immediately tell this is a scheduling-only reorder, not a content edit.

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 editPost as the sibling it differs from and states the confirmation requirement, giving clear context for use. It stops short of stating when this operation is preferable or what happens on failure vs. retry, so no exclusion guidance.

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