scheduler_schedule_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (create/update) and the parameter constraint, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwrite on same task_id), required permissions, or idempotency. Adequate but not thorough for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence with a namespace prefix, directly stating purpose and critical constraint. No filler; every word earns its place. Highly efficient.

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 functionality and constraint. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, it omits context like the role of 'prompt' (the task to execute) and the format/validity of 'task_id'. Still, it is fairly complete for a scheduling 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant semantic value by explaining the roles of 'interval_minutes' (recurring) and 'run_at' (one-shot) and their mutual exclusivity. However, 'task_id' and 'prompt' are not explained beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create or update a scheduled task', specifies the distinct parameters (interval_minutes vs run_at), and differentiates from sibling scheduler tools which handle cancellation, listing, clearing, and running. The verb 'create/update' plus resource 'scheduled task' is precise.

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?

Explicitly provides a critical usage rule: 'Provide either interval_minutes (recurring) or run_at (one-shot ISO datetime), but not both.' However, it does not mention alternatives for other scheduling actions (e.g., cancel, list) or when to prefer this tool over others.

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