start_stop_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect (enable/disable) but does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is adequate for a simple toggle but leaves some gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated first, followed by a minimal but clear Args block. No wasted words.

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 simple toggle tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It could be more complete by addressing error conditions or prerequisites, but given the low complexity, it is largely sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: schedule_index is 0-based, and is_start is true for enable, false for disable. This is essential and clearly adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 action: 'Start (enable) or stop (disable) a schedule.' This specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_schedule, delete_schedule, and get_schedule_status.

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 makes clear that the tool toggles a schedule between enabled and disabled states. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is unambiguous relative to the sibling tools.

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