Replace a Roomba's cleaning schedule by defining start days/times and commands, enabling automated cleaning at specific times (requires ROOMBA_ALLOW_WRITES=1).
Replace the cleaning schedule. Each entry needs a start object (day, hour, min) and a cmdStr string. Needs ROOMBA_ALLOW_WRITES=1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schedule | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does deliver key facts: this is destructive full replacement of existing schedule state, and it requires an environment flag to be enabled. It stops short of describing failure behavior or whether the previous schedule is recoverable.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and overwrite semantics, then the payload shape, then the prerequisite. No filler.
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 output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers action, payload structure, and auth gate. Remaining gaps are the day/hour/min value ranges and timezone convention, which matter for a schedule tool.
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% and the parameter is an untyped array of loosely-typed objects with additionalProperties, so the schema alone tells an agent nothing. The description compensates well by naming the required entry shape: a start object with day, hour, min and a cmdStr string.
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 verb and resource ('Replace the cleaning schedule'), and the word 'Replace' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_schedule reader. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so a 4 rather than 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?
The 'Replace' framing implies whole-schedule overwrite versus incremental edit, and the ROOMBA_ALLOW_WRITES=1 prerequisite gives a usable gate. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus set_setting or get_schedule, and no note on whether an empty array clears the schedule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.