tg_schedule

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

It discloses important behavior beyond annotations: delivery persists even if the machine is off, bare ISO times are read as local time, and relative time formats are supported. It does not discuss idempotency or duplicate-delivery behavior, but annotations already cover the safety profile and the description adds meaningful operational context.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a useful delivery guarantee, then a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter action with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly, including time format details and the machine-off delivery guarantee. It could additionally mention success/error feedback or how to manage scheduled messages, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does this completely: chat is 'recipient,' text is 'message body,' when is explained with ISO and relative examples plus timezone behavior, and reply_to is 'message id to reply to.' This is exactly the compensation needed.

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 opens with 'Send a message later,' which is a specific verb + resource and immediately distinguishes this from immediate-send siblings like tg_send. It also adds the unique scheduling property that delivery happens even if this machine is off.

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?

The description makes the intended use case clear: scheduling a message for later delivery, including when the local machine may be off. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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