set_backup_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool only persists configuration, not triggering backup. However, it lacks details on validation, error handling, or effect on existing schedule, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise with a two-sentence intro and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence is meaningful, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 no annotations and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage. It could optionally mention whether the schedule is overwritten or fails gracefully, but overall is complete for a configuration tool.

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?

The description covers all 4 parameters with clear explanations (e.g., 'Time in HH:MM UTC', 'older ones deleted'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.

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 'Configure the nightly backup schedule.' and explicitly distinguishes from the actual backup execution by stating 'This tool only persists the configuration.' and referencing trigger by scheduler, distinguishing it from siblings like backup_db.

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 explains that the schedule is read by the scheduler (Phase 10) to trigger backup_db(), implying this tool is for configuration only. It provides clear context for usage but does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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