cron_add

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond creation (no duplicate handling, permissions, or side effects), but with annotations carrying the safety bar, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single line, followed by a compact per-argument list. The docstring format is slightly verbose but each line maps to a required parameter and earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and all six required parameters are documented. The remaining gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance relative to the cron_* siblings, but for a create-with-explicit-args tool the definition 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it documents every one of the six parameters with valid ranges (0-59, 0-23, 1-31, 1-12, 0-7) and supported wildcard syntax ('*' or '*/N'). This is meaningfully more than the bare schema titles provide.

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 Russian description states a specific verb and resource ('Зарегистрировать новую cron-задачу' = register a new cron task), which is clearly distinct from siblings like cron_edit, cron_delete, and cron_toggle. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the 'new/add' semantics differentiate it well enough for selection.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus cron_edit or cron_toggle, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The agent is left to infer that this is the creation path from the name alone.

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