Plan an exact Ghost schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the plan is HMAC-bound (so it is verifiable/tamper-evident and presumably consumed later), and it explicitly disclaims emailing, deploying, and headless visibility.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the second sentence delivering only information that is not already in annotations. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety story is well covered. However, with four required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the missing explanation of interval_hours and the per-post object fields leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains two of the four required parameters well ('ordered draft list', 'IANA local start time') and conveys the ordering constraint the schema cannot, but it never mentions interval_hours nor the id/updated_at shape of each posts item.

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 names a specific transformation: an ordered draft list plus an IANA local start time becomes exact UTC timestamps inside an HMAC-bound plan. That is clearly distinct from the write-side siblings like schedule_posts or apply_change_set, though neither is named explicitly.

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 negative guarantees ('never writes, emails, deploys') imply this is a dry-run/planning step to run before a real scheduling action, but the description never states when to choose it over schedule_posts or apply_change_set. Usage must be inferred.

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