docs(rivetkit): remove redundant overdue schedule note

[NathanFlurry]

No description provided.

[NathanFlurry]

Stack for rivet-dev/rivet

• #5452 refactor(rivetkit): expose schedule intervals as durations
• #5450 perf(rivetkit): index named queue reads
• #5449 refactor(rivetkit): use unitless schedule duration names
• #5451 perf(rivetkit): bound queue reads and history pruning
• #5448 refactor(rivetkit): collapse unpublished internal schema
• #5446 refactor(rivetkit): centralize internal sqlite storage
• #5445 test(rivetkit): simplify sqlite efficiency coverage
• #5443 perf(rivetkit): verify and optimize internal sqlite queries
• #5427 fix(rivetkit): clean up cron history efficiently
• #5439 docs(rivetkit): remove redundant overdue schedule note 👈
• #5440 docs(rivetkit): use scheduling code snippets
• #5442 fix(rivetkit): configure inspector protocol versions
• #5441 feat(rivetkit): add actor scheduling
• main

Get stack: forklift get 5439
Push local edits: forklift submit
Merge when ready: forklift merge 5439

_{change pkwwuxmn}

[claude]

Review

Trivial one-line docs change: removes the Overdue one-shots bullet from the "Execution behavior" list in website/src/content/docs/actors/schedule.mdx.

• Confirmed via grep that this was the only place "overdue" was mentioned anywhere in website/src/content/docs/, so no other section becomes orphaned or inconsistent by this removal.
• The claim of redundancy is reasonable but not airtight: the remaining Durability bullet ("schedules are durable, wake the actor on demand, and survive crashes") implies the general behavior, but the removed line called out a specific, easy-to-wonder-about case — what happens to a one-shot schedule whose fire time already passed while the actor was asleep/crashed. A reader skimming "Durability" may not immediately infer "yes, it still fires exactly once on resume, it isn't dropped." lifecycle.mdx has related language ("scheduled events are persisted and will be re-armed when the actor wakes") but doesn't explicitly cover the already-overdue-at-wake case either.
• Consider folding that specific guarantee into the Durability bullet (e.g. "...survive crashes; overdue one-shots run when the actor resumes") rather than dropping the information outright, unless the team is confident this is sufficiently implied — worth a quick second look before merge, though this is a minor nit on an otherwise safe cleanup.

No code, tests, security, or performance surface touched — nothing else to flag.