Schedule a draft

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: publishing is executed server-side by Substack and therefore survives the local machine being off. That is real value beyond the structured hints, though it omits anything about failure/validation behavior of publish_at.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the behavioral reassurance and the undo route. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 non-destructive, idempotent scheduling mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it and to reverse it. The only mild gap is that it never hints at the response or at validation failure for a past publish_at.

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 all four parameters (id, send, publish_at, publication) are already documented in the schema, including the ISO 8601 example and the loose hostname matching. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (schedule) plus resource (draft) and the timing constraint ('at a future time'), which immediately separates it from publish_draft (immediate) and schedule_note (notes). It also names the inverse sibling unschedule_draft, so an agent can place it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (future publishing) and explicitly routes to unschedule_draft for cancellation. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with publish_draft or note that publish_at must be in the future relative to now.

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