Schedule Newsletter

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the approval condition. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no context about what happens when scheduled (e.g., irreversibility, permissions, queuing). The agent lacks insight into side effects.

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 action and resource, minimal waste. Every word adds value.

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?

The description is adequate given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and good parameter descriptions. However, it lacks clarity on what scheduling entails (e.g., state requirements, conflict handling) and does not leverage the available structured fields to reduce ambiguity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline is acceptable. The description's approval condition is not parameter-specific.

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 title and description clearly state the verb 'Schedule' and resource 'Newsletter'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, preview, send test by specifying the scheduling action.

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 explicitly states to use only after explicit approval of content, audience, and time, setting a clear prerequisite. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the condition is strong enough for an agent.

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