paperclip_create_routine

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, including that it is a creation operation (non-destructive per annotations), return value structure, and error handling for common failure modes. It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured with sections for args, returns, examples, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the main action. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrases.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and the need to guide an agent, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter explanations, error scenarios, and return format. It is fully sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by providing specific examples and explaining options for concurrencyPolicy and catchUpPolicy, clarifying the meaning beyond the schema.

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 creates a routine for an agent and distinguishes from sibling tools like paperclip_add_routine_trigger and paperclip_run_routine by specifying that triggers are added separately and that this is for scheduled workflows.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use when: setting up a scheduled workflow for an agent before adding a cron trigger' and 'Don't use when: you want to trigger immediately — use paperclip_run_routine after creating the routine.' This effectively differentiates from alternatives.

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