Schedule message

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: delivery happens when the Omnicord process is running, and messages due during downtime are sent at the next start. It also clarifies that 'Omnicord sends it when the time comes,' revealing the delivery mechanism. This goes far beyond annotations and is not contradictory.

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?

The description is four sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds critical context: the event alternative, delivery mechanics, and the deployment limitation. No redundant information; it is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides complete guidance for correct invocation: what it does, when to use an alternative, the key scheduling limitation, and behavior on missed deliveries. It covers operational constraints (process must run) and failure recovery, making it sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides; it merely mentions 'once or on a daily or weekly repeat' which maps to the repeat enum, and 'later time' which maps to send_at. Thus, it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool posts a text message to a channel at a later time, with options for once, daily, or weekly repeat. It distinguishes itself from create_event by noting it sends an ordinary message, not an RSVP event. The verb 'post' and resource 'text message to a channel' are specific and 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 says to use create_event when members need to RSVP, providing a clear alternative. It also gives a critical usage condition: the Omnicord process must be running at delivery time, advising hosted or Docker deployment for always-on scheduling. This tells the agent when to use the tool and what environment is required.

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