openpanel_create_scheduled_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions email delivery and notes that 'project_id is optional if configured in environment,' which provides configuration context. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: that this creates a persistent scheduled job, how to cancel/modify schedules later, email failure handling, or valid schedule formats (cron expressions, etc.).

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 consists of two sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is minor noise that doesn't add value but also doesn't significantly detract. Every sentence conveys distinct information (purpose vs. configuration note) with minimal waste.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and the fact this is a mutation tool creating persistent scheduled jobs, the description is incomplete. It lacks documentation for 5 of 6 parameters, provides no return value information, and omits behavioral details critical for a scheduling tool (side effects, persistence, update mechanisms).

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), and the description fails to compensate adequately. It only mentions that 'project_id is optional if configured in environment,' leaving 5 required parameters (site, name, report_type, schedule, recipients) completely undocumented with no hints about valid values, formats (e.g., is 'schedule' a cron string or natural language?), or data structures (e.g., what format should 'recipients' array items be?).

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 states 'Create a scheduled report to be sent via email' which provides a specific verb (create), resource (scheduled report), and delivery mechanism (email). The email delivery aspect helps distinguish it from sibling export tools like openpanel_export_report_pdf. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'scheduled report' in the OpenPanel context.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openpanel_export_report_pdf or openpanel_get_overview_report. There are no prerequisites, no mention of required permissions, and no exclusion criteria for when NOT to use this tool.

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