schedule_compaction

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the minimal annotations: exactly one compaction is scheduled, handoff is saved verbatim to a per-job file, the schedule cancels on new user input or a stopped turn, the compaction prompt is not overridden, and there are no automatic retries. These are critical operational details the agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action and authorization requirement appear first, followed by handoff/resume semantics, cancellation behavior, and status-check guidance. Every sentence carries operational meaning with no filler or redundancy.

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 a scheduling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational contract: when to call it, what it schedules, how handoff works, resumption semantics, cancellation, status checking, and absence of retries. The sibling tools for probing/status/cancellation fill the remaining workflow context. Nothing critical appears 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 50% schema coverage, the description compensates meaningfully by explaining handoff persistence, the one-turn resume behavior, and the fact that the compaction prompt is not overridden. The schema already documents threadId and handoff fields well, so the description adds selective, high-value context rather than repeating schema text. It does not fully elaborate on all parameter edge cases, hence not a 5.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Schedule ONE compaction after this answer.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (probe_compaction, compaction_status, cancel_compaction) by focusing on scheduling rather than probing, checking, or canceling. The scope and constraints are unambiguous.

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 clearly states the key precondition: 'Only when the user authorizes compaction.' It also restricts resume:true to authorized continuation and notes cancellation conditions. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use comparisons, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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