tracecat_create_schedule

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as what happens when both cron and every are provided, required permissions, or side effects. The schema's required fields are only workflow_id, but description implies one of cron/every is needed, creating 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?

Single sentence that front-loads the purpose, contains no verbose or redundant content. Every word earns its place.

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 the complexity of scheduling (two modes, optional inputs, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not specify constraints, default behavior, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only a high-level summary ('cron or interval') without clarifying the mutual exclusivity or providing additional context beyond 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Create', resource 'schedule for a workflow', and specifies the two types (cron or interval). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_schedule, update_schedule, etc.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use advice, and no mention of prerequisites or constraints like mutual exclusivity of cron and every parameters.

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