post_w_company_scheduler

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the request structure (path_params, query, headers, body) but does not state side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens on success/failure. It is a mutation tool but lacks explicit warning or detail about consequences, making it insufficiently 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 concise, using two sentences with minimal waste. It front-loads the core action and endpoint, then follows with parameter placement instructions. However, it could be more structured by separating parameter guidance into distinct sentences, but overall it is efficiently written.

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 tool has an output schema (signal says true) and 4 parameters all optional, the description is thin. It does not explain the expected format of the request payload or query parameters, any required headers, or how the response is returned. For a create operation, more context on requirements and outcomes is needed to avoid incorrect calls.

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 schema provides no meaningful parameter descriptions (all are generic objects with 0% coverage). The description adds value by indicating that path_params contain route IDs, query holds filters/pagination, headers contain request headers, and body is the payload. This is a baseline improvement, but it does not explain the required structure or fields within each container.

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 action ('Create scheduler') and the endpoint (`POST /w/company/scheduler`), which identifies the resource. However, the phrasing 'Create scheduler Calls' is slightly awkward and does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like `patch_w_company_scheduler` or `post_w_company_update_schedule`, though the endpoint and name imply a create operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple scheduler-related tools in the sibling list (get, patch, delete, update_schedule, remove_schedule), but no mention of when this create tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from others.

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