Create a scheduled message

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds context by warning that it 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and that operator write opt-in plus confirm:true are required. This meaningfully supplements the annotation signals without contradicting them.

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 compact and information-dense. The core action and endpoint are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of operational value: nested object guidance, body fields, reference link, and mutation prerequisites.

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 complex mutation with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, body shape, nested-object caveat, external reference, permissions, confirmation requirement, and downstream effects. It does not describe the response format, but the reference link and nested-object pointers make the tool sufficiently callable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by naming the body fields (name, event, attachments, recurrence) and explicitly flagging that event and recurrence objects remain open. This helps compensate for the schema's generic body payload definition.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Create a scheduled message' alongside the explicit POST endpoint. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like xmatters_get_a_scheduled_message, xmatters_modify_a_scheduled_message, and xmatters_delete_a_scheduled_message.

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 useful prerequisites and hints about nested objects, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention the sibling modify/get/delete tools. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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