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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that each fire is owner-scoped and consumes the daily run budget, with skipped fires recorded as skipped_budget. It also discloses the 20-schedule cap and auth requirement. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then details constraints. It packs a lot of information in a few sentences, though the confusing 'three presets' phrase is a blemish.

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?

The description covers the essential prerequisites (saved rig, auth), behavioral side effects (budget, skipping), and limits (cap). It lacks explicit mention of the return value, but with no output schema that may be acceptable. The cadence preset error is a notable gap.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds budget-gating context for cadence. However, it incorrectly states 'those three presets only' when the schema defines six cadence options, which could mislead an agent. This error reduces the value of the added semantics.

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 tool's purpose: scheduling a saved rig to run on a recurring cadence. It distinguishes from siblings like schedule_delete and schedule_pause by focusing on creation, and mentions the prerequisite of a saved rig (rig_author).

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 context on when to use it: after a rig is saved (rig_author) and with a logged-in identity. It also notes the account cap of 20 schedules, implying limits. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like schedule_list or schedule_pause for other operations.

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