Create ai tracking schedule

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

Annotations only establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write with no open-world effect. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: immutable revisions are preserved, budget consent must be explicit, and the operation is idempotent via stable retry keys. It also clarifies that no paid baseline auto-starts, which complements the schema's enabled=false default.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding, which is structurally sound. However, the first sentence spends its budget on a vague verb phrase instead of the actual create action, and the "stable retry keys" claim points at functionality not represented anywhere in the schema.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a deep nested configuration object, a required preview-derived revision set, and no output schema, the description omits the prerequisite workflow (obtain budget/consent/credential revisions via preview) and any reference to the sibling that performs it. The description leaves the agent without the context needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the nested configuration object documents every field (budget_revision, consent_revision, credential_connection_id, etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's "explicit budget consent" loosely maps to the consent parameter, but "stable retry keys" references no parameter in the schema, adding noise rather than meaning.

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 "Manage project-scoped AI tracking," a generic verb that does not match the tool's actual action (creating a schedule) and does not distinguish it from siblings like update_ai_tracking_schedule, archive_ai_tracking_schedule, or create_ai_tracking_run. Only the name/title conveys the create-schedule action; the prose itself never states it.

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?

"This does not start an automatic paid baseline" is a useful negative scope statement, but there is no guidance on when to call this versus preview_ai_tracking_run, update_ai_tracking_schedule, or list_ai_tracking_schedules, and no stated prerequisite (e.g. that a reviewed preview must be obtained first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the schema.

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