cyberboss_food_set_work_cycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input format and gives a example, but does not explain behavior like overwriting previous cycles, idempotency, permissions, or error responses.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The example is helpful. It could be slightly more structured, but there is no waste.

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 there is no output schema, the description does not explain return values or confirmation of success. For a simple setter, it provides basic context but misses completeness on outcomes.

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 50% (type and anchorAwayStart have descriptions). The description adds significant context by showing how to use the parameters for a 48-hour pattern, clarifying that awayHours and homeHours represent durations and anchorAwayStart is a datetime, which compensates for missing schema details.

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 sets the user's repeating away/home work cycle for food reminder timing, giving a specific verb and resource. The example of a 48-hour shift pattern adds context. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like cyberboss_food_set_reminder_policy, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 implies usage for setting work cycles with a concrete example, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives among siblings.

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