qbit_manage_scheduler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly marks the two mutating operations as WRITE and states that they modify the qbit_manage instance. It also notes that schedule updates take effect immediately and type is auto-detected if omitted, which is useful behavioral context.

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 is tightly organized with a clear general instruction followed by three concise bullet points. Every sentence adds functional value, and the structure makes the operation dispatch pattern easy to parse.

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 description covers all three operations, their side effects, and key behavioral details like immediate effect and type auto-detection. Since an output schema exists, return values are less critical to explain. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites and error behavior, but for a dispatcher-style tool this is largely 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that `arguments` must be a dict matching the chosen operation, and it details the `body` parameter for `qbit_manage_update_schedule` with example values for `schedule` and `type`. The operation enum is already in the schema, but the argument semantics for update are meaningfully expanded.

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 explicitly enumerates three distinct operations with specific verbs and resources: get scheduler status, toggle schedule persistence, and update schedule. Each operation is clearly named and described, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from other qbit_manage tools.

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 top-level instruction to pass an `operation` and matching `arguments` dict provides functional usage guidance. The individual operation descriptions imply when each should be used, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools like qbit_manage_config or qbit_manage_commands.

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