create_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide meaningful details such as the bitmask semantics for days and the meaning of max_time, which are not obvious. However, it omits side effects like what happens if a schedule with the same name already exists, whether the operation is idempotent, or any required permissions. The description is informative but not fully transparent about the creation's consequences.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by a structured argument list. While the parameter explanations are detailed, they are all necessary given the schema's gaps. The format is scannable and each line earns its place. It is slightly verbose due to the examples, but these are valuable for clarity, so it remains appropriately concise.

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 create tool with 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers every parameter with useful domain-specific semantics. It also explains that a schedule is a container for jobs, providing important context for the tool ecosystem. It does not detail return values or error scenarios, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return-value explanation. Overall, it is highly complete for its complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. Each parameter is explained with concrete examples: start_time format (HH:MMAM/PM), frequency in seconds with daily example, days bitmask construction with '1111111' and '0000000' cases, and max_time semantics with '00:00' meaning no limit. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making the parameter usage clear and unambiguous.

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 tool's function: 'Create a backup schedule (container for one or more jobs).' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (backup schedule), and clarifies that a schedule is a container, distinguishing it from the sibling tool add_job which adds jobs to a schedule. This is unambiguous and properly scoped.

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 implies usage by explaining that a schedule is a container for jobs, which suggests using this tool before add_job, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives or exclude cases. There is no direct 'use this for X, use add_job for Y' guidance, so it relies on the user inferring the relationship from the container mention.

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