set_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (overwriting existing schedules), validation of cron expression, error handling, or permission requirements. The behavior is described only at a high level.

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 concise with a clear one-line summary followed by a well-structured Args list. Every sentence is informative and there is no extraneous content.

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 the parameters well but lacks details on behavioral aspects such as whether it creates vs. updates schedules, validation, and error scenarios. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required, but more context on side effects would improve completeness.

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?

The description includes an Args section that explains each parameter with details and an example for cron_expression. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles and types, especially given 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool schedules a workflow to run automatically on a cron schedule. It uses a specific verb 'schedule' and resource 'workflow', distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_workflow' (immediate execution) and 'create_trigger' (event-driven).

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_trigger' for event-driven scheduling or 'run_workflow' for immediate execution. It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., workflow must exist) and conditions when not to use.

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