rmm_schedule_script

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the high-impact nature ('runs code on a customer machine'), the hard confirmation requirement, and the no-recurrence limitation. It stops short of describing failure behavior, permissions/run-as implications, or what is returned.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the highest-risk fact (code execution on a customer machine requiring confirmation) is placed last as the emphatic close. Each sentence carries distinct information: capability, limitation, prerequisite.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core risk, the scheduling limitation, and the script_id acquisition path. Remaining gaps are mostly delegated to a fully-described schema, so an agent can call this correctly, though return behavior is unaddressed.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters including the run_type enum and next_time dependency. The description only reinforces run_type's now/later semantics and the sourcing of script_id; it adds little beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (run) and resource (RMM script) with explicit scope: one asset, now or once later. This clearly distinguishes it from every sibling in the rmm_* and scheduling_* families, which list/get/create alerts or schedules rather than executing code.

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?

Gives real usage constraints: recurring schedules are not permitted via API, and script_id must be obtained from the Syncro script page because no API lists scripts. It also states the mandatory user confirmation. What it lacks is any framing of when this is preferable to other remediation paths, though no sibling offers an alternative.

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