schedule_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only states the deferred-send behavior. It does not disclose cancellation options, side effects, validation of schedule_date, timezone handling, or what a successful schedule operation returns.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and scheduling qualifier. It is appropriately compact for such a high-level purpose statement.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial scheduling semantics such as past-date handling, reply_to behavior, and post-call expectations, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it.

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 coverage is only 25%; only schedule_date has a description ('ISO datetime'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and reply_to is entirely unexplained for the agent.

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 action ('Send a message') with a clear qualifier ('at a future time'), which distinguishes it from sibling send_message. The resource and scheduling intent are immediately clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use schedule_message versus alternatives like send_message or get_scheduled_messages. The description implies future delivery but never explicitly routes the agent between immediate and scheduled sending.

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