Schedule a post (requires confirm)

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

Annotations declare a non-read, non-destructive, open-world write; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that — the confirm:true dry-run/preview mode, and that nothing is sent until an external trigger (run_due_posts from cron) fires. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate limits, so not a full 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value constraint (the confirm preview behavior) is front-loaded immediately after the purpose.

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 the confirm workflow and the cron dependency, which are the two facts an agent must know to use this correctly. With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it could still say what the preview returns and what provider/sendAt mean, so it falls short of complete.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the load and it only explains confirm's semantics. chatId, text, the date-time format of sendAt, and the green/cloud provider enum are left entirely to the bare schema.

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 and resource with scope: "Queue a post for a future time." An agent can tell this is deferred delivery, distinct from the immediate-send siblings. It does not explicitly name post_message or draft_post as the non-scheduling alternatives, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives clear operating context: omit confirm to get a preview, pass confirm:true to actually queue, and run_due_posts (with confirm) is what delivers them. However it never says when to prefer this over draft_post or post_message, so the alternatives guidance is incomplete.

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