schedule_follow_up

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions date format and that a reminder is scheduled, but omits important details like overwrite behavior, error conditions, permissions, or side effects of this mutation.

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, front-loaded with the action and a critical format constraint. No wasted words, though the description could be slightly more structured by covering each parameter.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not provided, the description is too sparse. It fails to specify parameter semantics beyond date format and lacks behavioral context for a scheduling mutation tool.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It only explains the date format for the 'date' parameter. The 'app_id' and 'note' parameters are completely untouched, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 uses a specific verb 'Schedule' and identifies the resource as 'follow-up reminder for an application', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'list_due_follow_ups' which is a read operation.

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 this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling list_due_follow_ups exists, but no comparison or context is provided.

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