add_schedule

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 timezone behavior for cron expressions, which is useful, but it does not mention permissions, failure conditions, or whether an existing automation is required. The behavior is minimally transparent.

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 two sentences plus an args listing, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured cleanly for parameter details.

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?

For a simple two-parameter add tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter details. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., automation must exist) but is otherwise 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: automation_id is 'The automation UUID' and cron is a 'Cron expression in Pacific time' with an example. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states 'Add a new cron schedule to an automation' with a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('schedule'), and scope ('to an automation'). The word 'new' distinguishes it from update_schedule and delete_schedule among siblings.

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 verb 'Add' implies use when creating a new schedule, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives like update_schedule. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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