schedule_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a background agent (jobjourney-agent) runs the discovery engine daily at the given time across specified sources and stores results locally. It omits error handling, what happens to existing schedules, login/permission prerequisites, and whether results overwrite prior runs.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action ('Schedule recurring job discovery') before the behavioral detail. The second sentence is slightly padded ('The jobjourney-agent will run the discovery engine daily') but remains efficient overall.

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 mutation-style scheduling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (recurring, daily, multi-source, local storage). It is a bit thin on side effects and interaction with the schedule-management siblings, but sufficient for an agent to call it 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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including HH:mm format, page limits, and default sources. The description only loosely echoes 'requested time' and 'specified sources', adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (schedule) and resource (recurring job discovery), with the word 'recurring' implicitly distinguishing it from the one-off discover_jobs sibling. It does not explicitly name alternative schedules tools (list_schedules, toggle_schedule, delete_schedule), so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied by 'recurring job discovery' and the daily cadence, so an agent can infer this is for setting up ongoing discovery. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of discover_jobs for one-off runs, and no note about viewing or canceling existing schedules via the sibling tools.

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