schedule-drafts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: drafts with attachments refused, Mac must stay logged in, overdue jobs run after wake/login, and the real future send. It also explains the return value structure.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections (Use when, Returns, Requirements, Do not use, Safety) and is approximately 7 sentences. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and 3 required parameters with partial schema coverage, the description covers use case, prerequisites, safety, return info, and constraints. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 67%, and description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the confirmation requirement and attachment restriction. It reinforces send_at format and confirmed semantics, adding value over the schema definitions.

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 explicitly states 'Use when: the user explicitly asks to send one or more fully reviewed Apple Mail drafts at a future date/time', which clearly identifies the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send-draft (immediate send) and other scheduling operations.

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 both when to use ('Use when') and when not to use ('Do not use when'), including alternatives like Mail's native Send Later mailbox. It gives clear context and exclusions.

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