schedule_run_due

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: the batch scope (all recurrences satisfying next_run <= today) and that dry_run defaults to TRUE, so a bare call will not mutate anything. It omits the consequences of dry_run=false (what documents get created), idempotency, and whether repeat calls double-generate recurrences.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety-relevant default; no filler. Slightly terse phrasing in a non-English language makes it marginally less scannable for an English-language sibling set.

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?

A side-effecting batch executor with no annotations and no output schema needs more: what a run returns (counts, per-recurrence results), what happens on partial failure, and permissions. The scoping condition and dry-run default are covered, making it minimally viable but not complete.

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% and the single parameter has no in-schema description, so the description must compensate. It only restates the default value already encoded as default: true and never explains what dry_run actually does (simulate vs. persist), so it adds emphasis but little semantics.

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 and resource ("Esegue le ricorrenze in scadenza") plus a precise selection condition (next_run <= oggi), so an agent knows it processes all due recurrences in batch. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling schedule_run_now, leaving the difference between 'run all due' and 'run one now' implicit.

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?

"come il job pianificato" implies this is the manual equivalent of the cron trigger, which helps an agent infer when to use it. However, nothing states when NOT to use it, nor when schedule_run_now or schedule_list would be the better choice.

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