Set an automation schedule (hourly, daily, weekly) and time of day

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the two things an agent most needs: this is a write, and it is gated behind confirm:true because there is no server-side dry run — a meaningful caveat about the preview being client-side only. It stops short of saying whether the new schedule replaces or merges with an existing one.

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 sentences, zero filler: purpose plus route first, then the critical gating constraint front and center. Every clause 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?

For a confirm-gated mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description covers the safety story well but leaves the payload semantics thin — no explanation of the 'at' sub-fields, the meaning of weekday, or whether the schedule is replaced wholesale. Adequate to call correctly only if the agent guesses at the nested object's semantics.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage and a nested 'at' object whose hour/minute/weekday/timezone sub-fields carry no descriptions at all, the description should compensate but does not. Saying 'hourly, daily, weekly and time of day' merely repeats the schema enum and title, leaving ambiguous points unaddressed — notably what weekday value 0 means (Sunday vs Monday) and how timezone interacts with the defaults.

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 and resource ('Set an automation schedule'), enumerates the allowed cadences, and names the HTTP route PUT /v1/rules/{id}/schedule. An agent can distinguish it from the read counterpart rules_getSchedule by the verb alone, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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: not executed unless confirm: true' clause gives a concrete calling condition, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no statement about when to prefer rules_simulate first, when to use rules_getSchedule to inspect the current schedule before overwriting, or any prerequisite/scope requirement.

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