Schedule a job

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds non-obvious behavior: the scheduled request carries an x-antideploy-cron header that anyone can spoof, so real-work endpoints should verify their own secret. This is valuable beyond structured fields, though it doesn't cover auth requirements or duplicate/error behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action and example, then the security note. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a 3-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the important operational and security context an agent needs. Some details, such as whether the new schedule is active immediately or how conflicts are handled, are omitted, so it is not 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%, with path, method enum, and cron format fully documented. The description adds only conceptual context and no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific action (call a path) and resource/scope (this application, on a schedule), with a concrete example. It is clear enough to distinguish from list/remove schedule siblings by name, but the description itself does not explicitly contrast them, so not a 5.

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?

Gives a representative use case (nightly cleanup) and a security caveat, which helps decide usage. But it never states when to prefer this over set_schedule_enabled/list_schedules/remove_schedule or any exclusion, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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