create_scheduled_message_via_name_or_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it covers only one sentence of intent. It says nothing about permissions needed, what the tool returns, timezone/format handling of the send time, or the 30-second minimum future constraint that lives only in the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification as much as tight writing.

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?

This is a write/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, and scheduling has real behavioral nuance (send-time format, who can schedule, how to verify afterwards). None of that is addressed, so an agent must guess at behavior the description should have covered.

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%, so the schema already documents all four params, including the userIdentifier/channelIdentifier mutual-exclusivity rule. The description adds nothing beyond that, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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') plus the target ('to a channel or user'), and 'for future delivery' implicitly separates it from the immediate-send siblings. It never names those siblings, though, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'for future delivery' hints at when to use this rather than send_message_via_channel_name_or_id, but no alternative is named and no exclusion or prerequisite is given. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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