schedule_run_now

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: the next scheduled execution is left untouched, and dry_run defaults to true (a safety-relevant default). It does not say what the execution actually produces (emails, documents, ledger entries), whether the run is idempotent, or whether it requires elevated permissions — significant omissions for an execution-triggering tool.

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 sentences with no filler, and the primary behavior (run now, don't reschedule) is front-loaded ahead of the dry_run caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the text is in a different language than the tool name and schema, which adds a small parsing cost for an English-speaking agent.

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 flat three-parameter execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics (immediate run, no reschedule, dry-run default) but leaves the two undocumented parameters and the concrete side effects unaddressed. An agent could invoke it, but only by guessing what "id" and "date" mean.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only explains dry_run's default. The required "id" (which recurrence) and the optional "date" (apparently the target date for the out-of-schedule run) are left entirely unexplained, and the date's YYYY-MM-DD format is only visible in the schema pattern.

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?

"Esegue subito una ricorrenza fuori calendario" gives a specific verb (execute now) plus the resource (a recurrence/schedule) and its scope (off-schedule execution). It does not name the closely related sibling schedule_run_due, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word "ricorrenza" versus a batch of due runs, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the appropriate moment to use it — when you want a recurrence to fire immediately rather than at its scheduled time — and the dry_run note hints at a safe trial path. It never states when NOT to use it, never contrasts it with schedule_run_due or schedule_update, and gives no prerequisite that a schedule id must already exist.

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