sac_schedule_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create' implying a write operation, but lacks disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior like overwriting existing schedules. The 'allowalteration' parameter hints at a safety mechanism, but its significance is not explained in the description.

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 sentence, extremely terse and without wasted words. However, it may be overly brief, omitting important context that would justify a higher score. It is efficiently structured but under-informative.

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 complexity of a 'create' operation with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the structure of the schedule definition, required fields, or the expected response. For a creation tool, more detail is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline descriptions. The body parameter is described as 'Schedule definition', which is vague and adds little beyond the schema. allowalteration's description 'Must be true to execute' adds some context. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information, so it scores at the 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 'Create a publication schedule' clearly identifies a specific action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sac_schedule_delete or sac_schedule_update. However, it does not elaborate on what a publication schedule is, which may cause ambiguity for unfamiliar agents.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like sac_schedule_update, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context such as whether the schedule object must exist first.

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