schedule_recurring_plan

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that creating a standing automation is an authority act, that approval may be required at creation time, that each occurrence is revalidated, and that confirmation-requiring occurrences are skipped and audited rather than auto-approved. This is exactly the behavioral nuance an agent needs for a destructiveHint=true tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, approval/authority, runtime safety behavior, and expiry. It is front-loaded with the core action and does not waste words on schema-restatable details.

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 complex, destructive, 6-param tool, the description covers the essential context: creation-time authority, approval requirements, recurring run-time validation, skip/audit behavior, and optional expiry. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does: plan_id maps to 'a plan's commands,' time_of_day/timezone to 'fixed local time,' days_of_week to optional weekday restrictions, approval_id to the request_approval flow, and expires_at to how long the automation stays active. Exact formats like time_of_day syntax are not specified, but the functional semantics are all conveyed.

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 a plan's commands to run repeatedly at a fixed local time, optionally restricted to specific weekdays.' This clearly distinguishes recurring scheduling from one-off execution and from the sibling tool schedule_plan.

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 gives clear context: it is for standing automations, not one-time runs, and it explains when approval_id is required. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for one-time execution, but the distinction from running commands once is clear 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.