ig_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that publication is handled by the systemd timer and references `ig scheduler install`, but it omits permissions, failure behavior, idempotency, and what happens to the queued item after scheduling.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The scheduling format examples and timer note are compact and earn their 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?

For an 18-parameter scheduling mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It explains `when` and the timer mechanism but leaves most operational details uncovered.

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 only 39% across 18 parameters. The description adds valuable format examples for the required `when` parameter, which has no schema description, but it does not compensate for undocumented fields like type, media, caption, collaborators, or trial semantics.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Queue a post for later.' This distinguishes scheduling from immediate publishing at a high level, though it does not explicitly name ig_publish or other queue-related siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for later,' but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of ig_publish or how it relates to ig_queue_list, ig_queue_cancel, or ig_queue_retry. It also allows 'when': 'now', which blurs the boundary with immediate publishing.

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