hedera_create_schedule

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

The description discloses that the transfer is unsigned and requires multiple signatures before execution, but lacks important behavioral details such as expiration time, execution triggers, fee implications, or consequences if not fully signed. With no annotations, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and lifecycle.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and concept. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or verbosity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, multi-signature flow, no output schema), the description is too brief. It omits details about return value (e.g., schedule ID), prerequisites (e.g., valid inner transfer), and execution model. The description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 71% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond 'wraps an inner transfer'. While two parameters (memo, payerAccountId) lack schema descriptions, the tool description does not compensate for them, keeping the score at baseline 3.

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 it builds an unsigned scheduled HBAR transfer, explaining that it wraps an inner transfer for multi-party signing. This distinguishes it from immediate transfer tools like hedera_transfer_hbar and signing tools like hedera_sign_schedule.

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 implies use when multiple parties need to sign before execution, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use hedera_transfer_hbar instead) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The implied usage is present but not explicit.

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