schedule_videos

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a 1–50 item batch cap, timezone-aware future scheduling, and sequential delivery spaced by an optional interval. It does not describe failure handling or partial-batch behavior, which matters for a non-idempotent batch 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and cardinality, then timing, then the operational prerequisite. Every sentence adds information and none repeats the schema.

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 an output schema present and annotations declaring the mutation profile, the description supplies what structured fields don't: batch size, timezone-aware future timing, interval pacing, and the worker dependency. Remaining gaps are error/partial-failure semantics and the relationship to the cancel/list siblings.

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 carry parameter meaning and largely does: job_ids is bounded to 1–50 prepared IDs, publish_at must be a future datetime with timezone, and interval_seconds controls the spacing between sequential sends. Format details (e.g. the exact datetime string format) are still unstated.

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 (予約する/schedule) and resource (準備ID / prepared video IDs) plus a concrete batch bound of 1–50, which distinguishes it from the immediate-send sibling send_prepared_videos. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 future-datetime requirement implies this is for deferred publishing rather than immediate sending, and 'ワーカー必須' (worker required) is a real precondition. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no statement of when not to use it versus send_prepared_videos or how it relates to cancel_scheduled_post.

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