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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself,' resolving the apparent tension between the name 'schedule' and a read-only tool. It also discloses the shape of the response (screens, buttons, fields) and the downstream browser dependency. It omits any note on limits, freshness, or what happens if the account lacks permissions, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the second sentence is a long run-on that buries the crucial 'opens nothing by itself' clause mid-sentence, and the dated parenthetical '(checked 23 Oct 2026)' is noise for an agent. The content is mostly worth keeping; the packaging could be tightened into shorter, parallel statements.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining what comes back: step-by-step instructions with screens, buttons, and fields. It also explains the execution path via the browser tools, which an agent needs to complete the task. Only minor gaps remain, such as preconditions on the user's Postscript session.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and no parameter claims are misleading.

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?

It states the resource and the intent ('Schedule campaign in the user's own Postscript account') and then clarifies that the tool itself only returns step-by-step instructions, which prevents an agent from mistaking it for a direct mutation. It does not name the sibling that actually creates a draft (postscript_create_campaign_draft) or otherwise differentiate itself by name, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a concrete workflow: call this to get the on-screen steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Postscript Cloud Browser. It also explains why it exists (the Postscript API and official MCP server cannot build or send campaigns). It does not state when to prefer a different sibling, such as drafting versus scheduling, so explicit exclusions are missing.

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