Schedule a job

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the action is enqueued, that publish_queue is enabled, that the tool must be allowlisted, and that confirm=true gates firing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds operational value: the scheduling constraint, allowlist requirement, no-invention rule, confirmation flow, worker mechanism, and kind definitions. No filler or repetition.

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?

This is a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations. The description covers the main scheduling path well, but it omits timezone, max_runs, name, and any indication of return behavior. These gaps could lead an agent to produce an incomplete cron or recurring schedule call.

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 only 30%, so the description must compensate. It usefully maps kinds to their key parameters: once (run_at ISO), every (every_ms), cron (5-field), and explains arguments and confirm semantics. However, it leaves timezone, max_runs, and name undocumented, which matters for a 10-parameter tool with sparse schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Enqueue a future organic action on AdvisorPPC's queue.' It clearly separates scheduling creation from the sibling schedule_list/schedule_cancel tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. It also states the key enabling effect, 'Enables publish_queue so the worker will fire it.'

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 gives clear functional context: X cannot natively schedule, the tool must be allowlisted, and confirm=true is required only after the user has named the time and copy. It also warns never to invent arguments. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like schedule_cancel.

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