schedule_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the post-status change ('scheduled') and the input requirement (future datetime), but omits details like prerequisites, error handling, or whether it also approves the post in addition to 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?

Three sentences cover purpose, a comparison to a sibling, usage constraint, and outcome. No redundant information; 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?

For a simple scheduling action without output schema or annotations, the description provides core functionality, the required datetime format, and the resulting status. It is largely complete, though it could mention the timezone parameter or potential failure conditions for greater robustness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully described. The description adds only a reformulation of scheduledAt's format and does not elaborate on the optional timezone parameter or postId beyond what the schema provides.

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') and identifies the resource ('a draft or approved post') with a clear outcome ('status becomes scheduled'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by referencing approve_post and implying reschedule_post is a distinct operation.

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?

It explicitly states the tool is equivalent to approve_post, providing a comparison for when to use it. It also gives a key usage requirement ('Pass a future ISO 8601 UTC datetime'), though it doesn't discuss exclusions or when not to use it relative to reschedule_post.

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