Manage Scheduled Job

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness, but the description goes further by explaining the idempotency mechanism ('by name'), detailing error conditions (CONFLICT for add, NOT_FOUND for update), and mentioning dry-run support. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: actions, idempotency/errors, and dry-run. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no redundant or unnecessary text.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers idempotency, errors, and dry-run. However, it could briefly mention that certain parameters (like onEvent) are only relevant for specific actions, even though the schema notes it. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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?

Input schema covers all 9 parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 actions (add, update, remove, enable, disable) on the specific resource (RouterOS scheduler entry), setting it apart from sibling management tools that target other resources like bridges or users.

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 implies the tool is for managing scheduler jobs, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like list_scheduled_jobs or other manage tools. The context is clear from the name and description but lacks explicit guidelines.

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