scheduling_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds important behavioral details (paused recommendation, field limitations) but does not disclose other behaviors like side effects, permissions, or error states. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second provides critical usage guidance and limitation. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, a key usage rule, and a notable limitation. It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but for a creation tool with high schema coverage, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond the schema, but it provides context about the paused parameter and invoice field restriction. This adds some value but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Create a recurring invoice schedule,' providing a specific verb and resource. It also adds critical usage guidance (paused=true) and a limitation (invoice-side fields not settable), distinguishing it from siblings like scheduling_update and scheduling_delete.

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?

Description gives explicit usage rules: 'Always create with paused=true to prevent auto-firing' and notes what cannot be set ('invoice-side fields...NOT settable via API'). It implies when to use it but does not explicitly state alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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