chat_schedule_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'schedule a message' without mentioning that post_at must be a future Unix timestamp, the need for channel ID, or any permissions or side effects. The optional parameters (text, attachments, blocks, etc.) are not hinted at.

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 concise (one sentence), which is good for brevity but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the verb, but every sentence should earn its place; here, the single sentence fails to provide enough context.

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?

Given 11 parameters with many optional ones and an output schema that likely returns a scheduled message ID, the description does not cover key aspects like scheduling constraints (e.g., must be future time), how to handle errors, or what the response contains. It is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the description adds no information about any parameters. It does not explain what post_at represents (e.g., Unix timestamp), how channel should be specified, or the role of optional fields like text or attachments. This is a critical gap.

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 the action ('Schedule') and the resource ('a message to be sent to a channel'). It is specific enough to convey the core purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like chat_post_message (immediate send) or chat_delete_scheduled_message, so it gets a 4 instead of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chat_post_message for immediate sending or chat_scheduled_messages_list for managing scheduled messages. There are no context clues or explicit exclusions.

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