create_scheduled_task

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

The description goes well beyond the single destructiveHint=false annotation: it clarifies the cron timezone is UTC, warns against local-time assumptions, reveals that the result contains next_run_at, and instructs relaying any warning verbatim. These are genuinely useful behavioral disclosures that are not available from the schema or 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?

Three sentences cover the core action, the most error-prone parameter, and a response-relay requirement without waste. The most important caveats are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what key response fields to expect (next_run_at and warning) and gives enough parameter guidance to make a correct first call. The sibling tool list provides surrounding context, and nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-explanation burden. It thoroughly explains cron_expression—its five-field format, UTC semantics, an example, and how to omit it. Other parameters like project_id, name, prompt, and model are self-explanatory from their names, though model gets no additional guidance.

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 opens with 'Create a scheduled task in a project,' naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling operations like update_scheduled_task, delete_scheduled_task, and list_scheduled_tasks.

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 gives a clear conditional: omit cron_expression for a task that only runs when started by hand, implying the alternative is to include it for time-based schedules. It provides useful context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use create_scheduled_task.

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