sendcraft_schedule_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait (scheduling for future delivery) and adds use-case context. However, it omits operational details like return values, timezone handling, prerequisites, or cancellation, which are relevant for a write-style tool without annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word 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 simple scheduling tool with schema covering all parameters, the description is adequate for selection. It does not mention return values or how to cancel a scheduled email, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill that gap, leaving moderate completeness.

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 every parameter clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly states the tool schedules an email for future delivery, with a specific verb ('schedule') and resource ('email'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling sendcraft_send_email by emphasizing 'future delivery' rather than immediate sending.

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 explicit use cases: reminders, follow-ups, drip messages, and any email that should go out at a specific time. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but the sibling list and 'future delivery' make the primary context clear.

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