disable_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely restates the action without mentioning reversibility, required permissions, side effects on running processes, or return behavior.

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: one sentence plus two clearly formatted parameter explanations. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function and inputs. However, it omits behavioral context (e.g., whether disabling is reversible, what happens if already disabled) and doesn't reference any alternative workflows or prerequisites.

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 'Args' section provides meaningful definitions for both parameters beyond the schema's bare titles: schedule_id is identified as the ID to disable, and folder_name as the display name of the containing folder. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this added context is valuable and helps the agent map inputs correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('process schedule'), clearly stating the tool's function. It is implicitly distinct from the sibling 'enable_schedule' through the opposite verb, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enable_schedule' or 'list_schedules'. The description only states the action, not the context, preconditions, or exclusions.

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