schedule_software_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two important behaviors: the installation delay and the auto-wake side effect. However, it does not mention other relevant traits such as whether the update can be canceled after scheduling, potential impact on vehicle availability, or error conditions. This is partial but not comprehensive disclosure.

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?

A single sentence of 13 words that is front-loaded with the core action and key qualifiers. No redundant or filler wording. Every phrase earns its place, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately conveys the core purpose and the most crucial side effect (auto-wake). It does not describe return values or prerequisites, but the schema covers parameter details, and the command is relatively simple. It is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, meaning all four parameters (vin, offset_sec, max_attempts, wait_for_completion) already have descriptions. The tool description adds only the 'delay (in seconds)' phrase, which directly reinforces offset_sec but does not add significant new meaning for other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Schedules') and resource ('software update'), clearly indicating the action. It adds a key qualifier ('after a delay (in seconds)') and a distinctive side effect ('auto-wakes if asleep'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like cancel_software_update. This is a textbook example of purpose clarity.

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 implies its usage (when you want to schedule a delayed software update) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like cancel_software_update. It does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent must infer when to select this tool.

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