schedule_plan

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating that 'the plan still goes through every existing safety check when its time arrives'. This reassures the agent that deferring execution does not bypass safety, and it aligns with the annotation rather than contradicting it.

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, no filler, and the most important operational fact (scheduling a previously approved plan for future execution) is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description gives a solid high-level picture and notes the safety-check behavior, but it does not explain how to obtain or populate the required validation_digest, what approval_id/bundle_digest are for, or how this interacts with sibling tools like cancel_scheduled_plan. The presence of an output schema and annotations helps, but the parameter gap limits completeness for a 5-parameter tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only implicitly maps 'future time' to execute_at and 'validated/approved' to validation_digest/approval_id. It provides no explicit meaning for plan_id, validation_digest, approval_id, or bundle_digest, leaving required parameters unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Schedule'), names the resource ('a previously validated/approved plan'), and states the key distinction ('at a future time, instead of immediately'). This clearly distinguishes it from immediate execution via execute_plan and other sibling scheduling tools.

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 description explicitly conditions usage on the plan being 'previously validated/approved' and contrasts with 'instead of immediately', giving the agent a clear contextual trigger. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the use case is well implied.

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