Draft schedule

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, which is consistent with a scheduled write. The description adds real value beyond them: it requires Chrome to be running and online at publish time, and requires an INSSIST PRO account. It does not say what happens if a schedule already exists (overwrite vs error), which is a minor gap.

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; the action and its auto-publish consequence are front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and account requirement. No filler.

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?

Covers action, timing, prerequisites, runtime environment and account tier — everything needed to invoke correctly, and there is no output schema to explain. Only the conflict/overwrite behavior for an already-scheduled draft is unstated.

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%, with 'at' fully documented including ISO 8601, local-time default and future-only constraint, and draftId's origin. The description merely restates that draftId comes from draft_create/draft_list, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3 is 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 (schedule) and resource (an existing draft) and adds the crucial outcome that it publishes automatically at that time, which separates it from draft_publish's immediate behavior. An agent can distinguish it from its siblings without opening the 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 clear prerequisite context: use draft_create first, or draft_list to obtain a draftId, and flags the INSSIST PRO requirement. It does not explicitly contrast with draft_publish for the 'publish now' case, but the scheduling semantics make the choice implied.

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