Schedule a thread

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the draft-registry validation gate, the score < 45 kill-rule refusal that schedules nothing, and that state is in-memory and lost on restart. The 'workflow discipline, not a scheduler daemon' line usefully corrects a likely agent misconception about durability.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then preconditions, failure mode, and persistence caveat in order of decision relevance. No filler.

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?

Covers preconditions, failure modes, persistence semantics, and the nested preflight object's effect, which is the hardest part of the schema. With no output schema, the one remaining gap is what a successful response looks like, which is minor.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the preflight threshold behavior (score < 45 refusal), and that posts must be the exact drafted strings. run_at is restated as ISO-8601 UTC, which is redundant with the schema description but harmless.

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 (schedule) plus resource (validated draft thread) and a concrete timing semantic (ISO-8601 UTC run time). Clearly distinguishable from draft_thread, validate_thread, and post_thread by the scheduling framing.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition that posts must come from draft_thread and that the registry rejects unvalidated text. It does not explicitly say 'use post_thread instead for immediate publishing', so the alternative routing is only implied rather than named.

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