schedule_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety load is carried. The description usefully adds that platform rules are validated at schedule time and that failures are actionable, which is real behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading the core transformation before the validation caveat. Efficient, though the second sentence is somewhat soft and could name the alternative tool instead.

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 23-parameter tool with a nested options object and no output schema, the description covers the core action and error model but says nothing about how the many platform-specific fields interact or what success looks like. The 96% schema coverage compensates for most of the gap, leaving the description adequate but not complete.

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 96%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only loosely maps to two of them ('account' and 'time') and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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: converting a draft into a real scheduled post, which clearly differs from create_draft and schedule_post. However, it never names the sibling it is distinct from, so the agent must infer the draft-vs-new distinction from the name alone.

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 implies usage through 'choosing the account and the time' and frames errors as fixable, which orients the agent, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus schedule_post or publish_post_now, and no prerequisites beyond the passing mention of platform rules.

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