schedule_send

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Mentions 'Client-facing' and permission requirement. However, lacks details on side effects (e.g., what happens to draft state, whether scheduling can be modified) and does not address edge cases like past scheduled_at. Provides basic but not comprehensive transparency.

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, param format, usage condition, and permission. Front-loaded and efficient. Minor improvement could be grouping permissions with usage condition for better structure.

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?

Given output schema exists (so return values not needed) and sibling tools provide context, the description adequately covers prerequisites (draft invoice, explicit confirmation) and distinguishes from related actions. Still, could explicitly mention that invoice must be in draft state and not already scheduled.

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 has 0% coverage; description partially compensates by explaining `scheduled_at` format with an example. However, `invoice` parameter is not described (likely an ID or reference). Baseline 3 is appropriate, but could be improved by clarifying `invoice`.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Schedule' and resource 'DRAFT invoice to be emailed at a future time'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'send_invoice' (immediate) and 'cancel_scheduled_send' (cancellation), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to call ('only when user has explicitly confirmed') and includes a permission requirement ('Requires invoices:send'). Could further clarify when not to use (e.g., if invoice is already sent), but overall guidance is strong.

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