fofa_schedule_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-idempotent/network profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that timezone, next_run, queries and liveness are surfaced back, and that check_alive=null inherits a global default with task wording taking precedence. It does not say what permissions are needed or what happens on duplicate schedule names.

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, roughly a hundred characters, so nothing is bloated and the purpose is front-loaded. However, the compactness comes at the cost of clarity: "mapping schedule" and "task wording has priority" are unexplained, so the brevity reads as cryptic rather than efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is guidance on the many unstructured request fields and on the relationship to sibling schedule tools; that gap is real but narrowed by the check_alive and precedence notes.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full explanatory burden for a request object with a dozen nested fields (task, when, fields, queries, analyze, max_pages, max_records, timing.*). It explains only check_alive's null semantics and mentions timezone/queries in passing, leaving the meaning of "task", "when", "fields" and the timing sub-fields entirely to infer from titles.

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?

"Save a ... schedule" gives a specific verb and resource and enumerates the supported recurrences (one-time/interval/hourly/daily/weekly/monthly), which makes the create intent clear. The phrasing "passive ... mapping schedule" is opaque jargon and nothing distinguishes it from sibling fofa_schedule_update beyond the tool name itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to create a schedule versus updating an existing one via fofa_schedule_update, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance-like sentence, "check_alive=null follows the current global default; task wording has priority", addresses field defaulting rather than tool selection.

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