bitpull_schedule_run

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the load and adds real substance: execution is one-shot, the stored schedule timing is preserved, and a run with a paid model consumes credits. It does not say what is returned or how failures/concurrent runs behave, but the credit-cost side effect is exactly the kind of context annotations never provide.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the cost caveat tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and no ambiguity is introduced by the brevity.

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 one-parameter trigger with no output schema and minimal annotations, the definition covers the essentials: what it does, that it does not mutate the schedule, and that credits may be spent. Only the outcome/return behavior and edge cases (disabled schedule, duplicate runs) are left unstated.

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 0% for the single required 'id' (uuid), so the description must compensate; it only implies the id identifies a scheduled task. It adds no detail on where that id comes from or whether other identifiers (e.g. task vs. schedule ids) could be confused with it.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Run a scheduled task') plus the precise scope ('now, once, without changing its times'), which separates it from schedule-editing siblings. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for actually changing times, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'without changing its times' implies this is the right tool for an ad-hoc trigger rather than rescheduling, which is usable guidance. However, no alternative is named and no when-not condition (e.g. what to do if the schedule is paused or already running) is stated.

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