messages_schedule_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Schedule a message to be sent' implies a write/mutation operation with delayed delivery, but the description doesn't state permissions required, whether the schedule is cancellable/updatable, whether the message validates immediately, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 11 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler. It's appropriately sized as far as it goes, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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?

With 11 parameters, nested objects (audience, messages, schedule), 18% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits any mention of Braze, audience targeting, required vs optional params, or mutation semantics, leaving the agent without critical context to call this tool 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 only 18%, well below the 50% threshold, so the description must compensate—and it doesn't. It mentions only 'a specific time' (mapping to the schedule.time param), leaving 10 other parameters (campaign_id, segment_id, audience, messages, broadcast, send_id, apiKey, etc.) completely undocumented in the description. The description adds no meaningful semantic guidance beyond what's already in the sparse 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 states a clear verb ('Schedule') and resource ('a message') with a timing qualifier, which is understandable on its own. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like messages_send (immediate send) or campaigns_schedule_create, canvas_schedule_create, and messages_schedule_update. A single sentence covering only the most basic intent leaves the agent guessing about which scheduling tool to pick.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over messages_send, campaign/canvas scheduling variants, or messages_schedule_update. The agent has no signal about the distinction between scheduling a direct message versus a campaign/canvas, or when immediate send is more appropriate.

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