ecp_crontab_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the command runs 'unattended, repeatedly, as this account's own system user' and warns to 'review carefully before confirming.' This reveals the security and persistence implications of scheduling a job, which is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not cover all possible behaviors (e.g., error handling, output), but the core safety-relevant behavior is disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then providing a concise behavioral caution. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy. The structure efficiently conveys the essential 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose, the cron expression format, the execution context (unattended, as user), and a safety warning. It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but for a scheduling tool these are less critical. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke it, though it could add a note on what the response contains.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It explains the cron_expression format with an example ('0 3 * * *'), which adds value. It does not describe the 'command' parameter (though its purpose is obvious) or the 'confirm' parameter, though the caution 'review carefully before confirming' implicitly references it. The description partially covers parameters but not fully.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Schedule a cron job.' It directly addresses the tool's function and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like ecp_crontab_list and ecp_crontab_remove by naming the action explicitly. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. However, the purpose is self-evident from the name and the context of sibling tools (crontab list/remove). The caution 'review carefully before confirming' implies a decision-making step but does not guide on alternative selection. This is adequate but not explicit.

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