Schedule

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, which is consistent with the description mentioning creation and deletion. However, the description does not disclose the specific effects of deletion (e.g., whether existing schedules are overwritten) or any required permissions, only adding moderate context beyond the annotation.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the main actions and then provide key details. No unnecessary information, front-loaded with the most important content.

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 6 parameters, an action enum, and no output schema, the description is adequate but misses details like parameter requirements per action, return format for 'list', and confirmation of deletion effects. Annotations partially compensate but do not fully close the gap.

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 100%, so the description adds little beyond examples of schedule spec format. It does not clarify parameter dependencies (e.g., which parameters are required for each action) or provide semantic grouping. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create, list, or delete scheduled tasks.' It specifies the verb and resource, and supports natural language scheduling. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, as no other sibling appears to handle scheduling.

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?

Description implies usage for scheduling tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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