Create a schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether creation is idempotent, not what permissions or panel-level API keys are required, not that inline baseUrl/clientKey/applicationKey overrides are transient, and not that the schedule is empty until tasks are added. A single sentence for a mutation tool with 13 parameters and zero annotation coverage leaves behavior almost entirely opaque.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but the brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency. There is no structure to speak of because there is essentially no content beyond the verb and one attribute.

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 13-parameter, 7-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain scope, required cron fields, credential overrides, and what is returned. It supplies only a cron hint, so an agent would have to infer nearly everything from the schema property names alone.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The phrase 'cron expression' does implicitly map minute/hour/day_of_month/month/day_of_week to cron syntax, which is genuine added meaning for five undocumented fields, but required params like server and name, plus is_active and only_when_online, are left with no semantic explanation anywhere.

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 a specific verb (Create) and resource (schedule) plus one defining attribute (cron expression), which is enough to separate it from schedule_list, schedule_get, schedule_update and schedule_delete. It does not say the schedule is server-scoped or that creating it is only the container step before adding tasks, so the purpose is clear but shallow.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. An agent gets no hint about prerequisites (a valid server identifier, panel context, valid cron semantics) or about the follow-up call to schedule_task_create needed to make the schedule useful.

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