rh11_schedule_quick_set

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

Despite annotations already indicating destructive and idempotent hints, the description adds crucial context: it clears existing schedules, omits fields default to 0, and discloses the SFB lock behavior with a configurable env var and response field. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the most important warning. Every sentence adds distinct value—purpose, destructive behavior, defaults, and SFB locking nuance—without wordiness.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and the absence of an output schema, the description covers key operational risks: clearing the schedule, default values, SFB lock timing, configurable env var, and the response field surfacing lock info. This is sufficiently complete for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described and default values provided. The description's mention that 'all omitted fields default to 0' reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already states.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Quick-set uniform daily volumes for a Rhodium11 project.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'rh11_schedule_set' by emphasizing uniform values and the destructive replace behavior.

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 provides clear context: this is for quickly setting uniform daily volumes, with an explicit warning that existing per-day schedules are replaced. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'rh11_schedule_set' for non-uniform schedules or state when not to use this tool.

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