discord_schedule_message

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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent write. The description adds the critical non-obvious trait that the timer is process-local and dies on restart, plus what is returned (task ID and next run time) — behavior an agent could not infer from any structured field.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then the limitation, then the return value. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information and none restate the tool name or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need little explanation, and the description still covers them. It omits two things an agent might need: how to cancel a scheduled task (discord_cancel_scheduled_task is a sibling) and any permission prerequisite for posting to the channel — minor gaps against otherwise strong coverage.

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 100% across all 15 parameters including nested author and fields objects, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. The description only implicitly maps 'after a delay' to delay_seconds and 'optionally repeating' to repeat_every_seconds/max_runs, adding nothing about embed vs plain content composition.

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 ('Schedule a message to be sent to a channel') plus the two defining modifiers: a delay and optional repetition. It also names discord_send_message as the contrasting tool, so an agent can distinguish scheduling from an immediate send without inspecting either schema.

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 an explicit when-not condition ('the timer runs inside this MCP server process... lost when it stops') and names concrete alternatives (cron, CI workflow, OpenHands automation calling discord_send_message). This is the exact routing information an agent needs to avoid picking this tool for durable posts.

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