Create a schedule

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real value beyond that: the operation is gated on confirm: true, returns a preview rather than executing otherwise, and explicitly has no server-side dry run. That last point is a meaningful safety disclosure an agent could not infer. It stops short of saying whether the created schedule takes effect immediately or what identifiers come back.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero waste. The action and endpoint come first, followed immediately by the safety gate, which is the most decision-relevant fact for an agent.

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?

The behavior of the confirm gate is fully covered, but for a nested-body creation tool with no output schema there is a gap: the description never indicates that frequency drives whether weekday or dayOfMonth applies, nor what the preview response contains. Adequate to avoid a destructive mistake, but thin for constructing a valid schedule.

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 67%, and the description adds little beyond restating the confirm gate that the schema already documents. The nested body object, which carries most of the semantic weight (frequency enum, weekday/dayOfMonth ranges, recipients cap, enabled default), receives no explanation in the description.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a schedule') and anchors it to the endpoint POST /v1/report-schedules. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from reportSchedules_update or reportSchedules_delete, but the create semantics are unambiguous.

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 WRITE/confirm gate is genuine usage guidance: the agent learns it must pass confirm: true or nothing happens. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to create a new schedule versus modifying an existing one with reportSchedules_update, nor any prerequisites such as needing a templateId/clientId pair that already exists.

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