Schedule a Note

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

The description discloses substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the queue is local, the Note only publishes while the server is running, delayed publishing is marked 'published late,' nothing is dropped, and no confirmation is required. It also clarifies that publication is public when it fires. This is exactly the kind of consequential, non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately explains the critical local-queue behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information, such as late-publish marking, nothing being dropped, and the Docker/HTTP guidance for server-independent scheduling. It is longer than one line but every sentence earns its place.

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 tool that schedules Notes with important operational caveats, the description covers all the essential context: the local queue, server liveness dependency, late-publish behavior, lack of confirmation, and public nature of the final publish. There is no output schema, but the description provides enough context for correct invocation. The optional publication parameter is also covered in the schema, and the description's operational guidance is complete.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the real-world effect of publish_at: a Note scheduled for 9am publishes at 9am only if the server is awake, otherwise on the next start after that time. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'When to publish' phrasing.

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 opens with a specific and unambiguous statement: 'Queue a Note to publish later.' It clearly identifies the resource (Note) and the action (scheduling for later publication), and it distinguishes this tool from the sibling schedule_draft and publish_note tools through its focus on Note scheduling. The phrase 'Scheduling is not publishing' further removes ambiguity about immediate publication.

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 the tool: when you want a Note published at a future time rather than immediately. It explains the operational constraint that the tool only fires while the server is running and suggests running the server continuously for reliable scheduling. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as publish_note or schedule_draft, so the exclusion guidance is mostly implicit.

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