reschedule-scheduled-send

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating effect ('changes when a real email will be sent') and the need for confirmation. It could be improved by covering edge cases (e.g., if send_at is in the past) but is generally transparent.

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 concise, purposeful sentences: usage guidelines, return value, and safety warning. No fluff, front-loaded with the key use case.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers behavior, conditions, and return value. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error cases, validation of send_at), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The description adds value beyond the schema: it contextually explains 'schedule_id' and 'send_at' as a 'timezone-aware time', and clarifies 'confirmed' as requiring explicit user confirmation. Schema coverage is 33% (only send_at described), and the description compensates well.

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 action ('changing the future time') and resource ('pending Apple Mail scheduled send'). It differentiates from siblings like 'cancel-scheduled-send' by focusing on rescheduling rather than cancellation.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions are given, including specific statuses (e.g., 'already sending, sent, failed, cancelled, needs_review') and the requirement for explicit confirmation before setting 'confirmed=true'.

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