Manage Scheduled Job

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

The description states the tool can 'remove' a scheduler entry, which is a destructive action, but the annotations set destructiveHint to false. This contradiction undermines the reliability of the description and annotations for safe agent invocation.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose and key behaviors. No extraneous information.

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 essential behavioral aspects (idempotency, error cases, dry-run) despite lacking an output schema. It could be improved by noting what happens on update (e.g., partial vs full replacement) but is sufficient for a manage 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the idempotent role of 'name' and the behavior of actions (add throws CONFLICT, update throws NOT_FOUND). With 100% schema coverage, this still adds valuable context.

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: 'Add, update, remove, enable, or disable a RouterOS scheduler entry.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (scheduler entry), differentiating it from sibling tools like list_scheduled_jobs.

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 provides guidance on idempotency (by name), error conditions (CONFLICT for add, NOT_FOUND for update), and dry-run support. While it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, the context of managing scheduler entries is clear among many manage_ siblings.

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