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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: each fire starts an unattended run bound to the agent, the run executes on the setting person's authority, and the outcome posts into that person's channel with the agent. The seat/admin gating and refusal of specialist seats are disclosed. It omits what an update does to pre-existing routine fields and whether runs are billable or throttled.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the create/update purpose before the behavioral and permission detail. The parenthetical issue reference '(#736)' is opaque noise that does not help an agent decide anything.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, side effects, authority model, and permission gating. It leaves open how updates merge with existing routines and how this relates to the sibling list/cancel tools, which keeps it short of complete.

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%, and the schema already documents cron format, timezone, enabled, name handle, agent_slug, and prompt. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 pair (create or update), a specific resource (standing cron routine), and its target (an agent), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling agent_routine_list. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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 strong operating context: it is for standing/scheduled routines, requires org:admin acting as a person, and specialist seats are refused. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. agent_run_start for one-off runs) or state when an update path is preferred over delete/recreate, so it falls short of a full 5.

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