stalwart_reschedule_queue_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary effect (rescheduling the retry time) and the retry_at format, but it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, overwrites existing retry counts, requires specific permissions, or what errors might occur. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely compact, with a single-sentence purpose followed by concise parameter definitions. Every word adds value, and the most important action is front-loaded. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required parameters), an output schema exists (so return value is covered elsewhere), and the description provides essential context including the parameter source. It is complete enough for a competent agent to invoke correctly, though it could add a bit more about edge cases or side effects.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining message_id as a queued message id from stalwart_list_queue and by giving retry_at a precise ISO 8601 UTC format with an example. Both parameters are meaningfully documented beyond their names, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 a specific action ('Reschedule') on a specific resource ('queued message') and specifies what is changed ('next retry time'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like stalwart_delete_queue_message and stalwart_get_queue_message because rescheduling is a unique 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?

The description gives clear context: it is used to change a queued message's retry time, and it instructs the agent to obtain message_id from stalwart_list_queue. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the reference to the sibling tool provides enough guidance for typical use cases.

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