Cli schedule

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly advertises 'clear: Clear existing schedules' and 'overwrite: Overwrite existing files', which are non-additive/destructive operations. This directly contradicts the destructiveHint annotation, so it is flagged as a contradiction.

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?

Uses a clear Args/Returns/Raises structure with the command front-loaded, and the length is reasonable for nine parameters. It is somewhat formulaic, but every line carries some 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?

For a nine-parameter, zero-schema-coverage command with no output schema, the definition is missing what the schedule operation actually does, required permissions, argument formats, and return structure. The brief Returns line names only 'Response object' and does not compensate for the absent output schema.

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 is the only source for parameter meaning. It lists all nine parameters with brief glosses, but leaves key formats undefined: 'every: Schedule frequency', 'depth: Crawl depth', and 'extra_data: Additional parameters as a dictionary' do not give enough information to invoke those fields correctly.

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?

States 'Execute archivebox schedule command', a specific verb plus command, but only restates the tool name/title and never explains what scheduling does. It differentiates from non-CLI siblings only by the command name, and provides no domain-level description of creating or managing archive schedules.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives; it is only an argument list. It never says when to choose this over archivebox_cli_add, archivebox_cli_update, or the non-CLI sibling tools.

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