slack_chat_schedule_message

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries part of the burden and does so usefully: it discloses the 120-day ceiling and, critically, that the returned scheduled_message_id is the cancellation handle. It does not restate the rate-limit or timestamp-unit details, which live in the schema.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scoping constraint front-loaded and the cancellation handle following. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the return value (scheduled_message_id) an agent needs for follow-up. Rate limits, timestamp units and the time_too_far failure mode are covered by the schema, so remaining gaps are minor.

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 channel, postAt, text and threadTs in depth. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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) and resource (a message) plus the horizon constraint (up to 120 days ahead), so an agent immediately knows this defers delivery rather than posting now. It never names slack_chat_post_message, so the distinction from that sibling is left implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'for later' implies when to use it versus immediate posting, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative (slack_chat_post_message). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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