rh11_schedule_set

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

Beyond the idempotent and destructive hints in annotations, the description adds significant behavioral detail: it explains that 'Replaces any existing schedule' (confirming destructive semantics), caps at 365 entries, and details the SFB locking mechanism (LOCK_SFB_DAYS, configurable via RH11_LOCK_SFB_DAYS) and the appearance of 'sfb_lock_info' in the response. This provides valuable context not present in the 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, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second clarifies the destructive replacement, and the third adds essential constraints and locking behavior. It is efficiently front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids fluff.

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 moderate complexity (nested schedule array, max 365 entries, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: full replacement, entry structure, limits, and the locking behavior with response field visibility. The annotations provide safety context, and the schema covers parameters, so the description completes the picture without needing to reiterate structured fields.

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 100%, with clear per-parameter descriptions for ui_id and schedule items (including the 'ongoing' date option and 'wishlist must be 0'). The description adds little beyond the schema: it re-mentions the volume fields and the max 365 entries, but does not introduce new parameter-level meaning.

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 clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'full per-day schedule for a Rhodium11 project,' and explicitly notes it 'Replaces any existing schedule,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like rh11_schedule_get and rh11_schedule_quick_set.

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 gives clear context by emphasizing 'full per-day schedule' and replacement, which implies it is for wholesale scheduling rather than partial updates (like rh11_schedule_quick_set). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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