create_schedule

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the Agent varies hook angle and structure each run to avoid repetition. However, it does not cover other important aspects such as idempotency, effects on existing schedules, required permissions, or error handling. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but only partially meets it.

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 at two sentences, efficiently covering purpose, frequency options, and a notable behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for setup but lacks information about return values (e.g., schedule ID) or error conditions. The schema covers parameters well, so the description completes the picture reasonably for its purpose.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions resulting in 100% coverage. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., noting the Knowledge Base as a source). Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not significantly augment the parameter understanding.

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: to set up an automated recurring video generation and export schedule. It specifies the resource (DemoStudio Agent), verb (set up), and key attributes (frequency options, variation in hook/structure). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_video (one-time) and get_video_status (status check).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The sibling context implies scheduling is for recurring generation, but the description does not explicitly state this or advise against using it for one-off tasks.

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