cron_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a cron job' and adds a command safety note about shell metacharacters. It does not disclose side effects such as persistent scheduling, immediate deployment, privilege/ownership requirements, or what happens when creation succeeds or fails. The 'confirm: Required' claim is also inconsistent with the schema, which marks confirm as optional with a default of false.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a tidy parameter list. Every comment is short, and there is no filler. It loses some points because several parameter comments simply restate the parameter names rather than adding meaningful 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 server-mutating tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, prerequisites, side effects, clear cron field formats, and a coherent confirmation contract. Although an output schema exists, it cannot compensate for missing behavioral and usage guidance. The misleading 'confirm: Required' note further weakens an agent's ability to invoke this correctly.

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 must provide meaning for each parameter. It does add a little value: minute has valid range '0-59 or *', command has a security caveat, impersonate is described as 'Owning user', and confirm is flagged. However, most cron fields are only restated tautologically ('hour: Cron hour', 'month: Month'), leaving standard cron format and allowed values unspecified, and the confirm note contradicts the schema.

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 opens with the specific action and resource: 'Create a cron job.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cron_list and cron_delete, which are respectively for listing and removing cron jobs. The purpose is immediately actionable.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as permissions, ownership requirements, or whether a cron job must already exist. The name and lead sentence imply creation, but the description does not help an agent choose among cron-related tools or understand preconditions.

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