Schedule a draft

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that publishing is executed by Substack's servers, so scheduling survives the local machine being off. This is useful non-obvious behavior. It does not contradict the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded and the cancellation tip earns its place. Nothing redundant or promotional is included.

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 straightforward scheduling operation with a fully documented schema and relevant annotations, the description covers the key operational context: future publish, server-side execution, and reversibility. It could add a pointer to publish_draft for immediate publishing, but the absence is not a serious gap.

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 id, send, publish_at, and publication. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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'), resource ('draft'), and core condition ('publish at a future time'), which clearly separates it from immediate publishing and from note scheduling. It also directly names the companion cancellation tool, unschedule_draft, reinforcing what the tool is and is not.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: future-dated publishing of a draft. It explicitly names unschedule_draft as the cancellation path, though it stops short of contrasting with immediate publishing via publish_draft or with scheduling notes.

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