create_schedule

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

No annotations are provided and the description is silent on behavior: it does not state that this is a mutating write operation, whether it requires permissions or an online robot, what happens on scheduling conflicts, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage the description carries the full burden and delivers nothing.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but this is brevity born of under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing in the sentence earns its place beyond the name restatement.

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 17 parameters, 7 of them required, no annotations, no output schema, and five sibling schedule tools, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine when to call this tool, what values to supply for its many cryptic parameters, or what result to expect.

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?

17 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Critical semantics such as the meaning of plan_execute_type, plan_repeat_type, semester_type, or the date/time formats for plan_start_time are left entirely unexplained on both the schema and the description side.

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 '创建标准排班 / Create schedule' essentially restates the tool name and adds only the word 'standard' to hint at a distinction from create_simple_schedule. It gives no indication of what a schedule contains or what creating one entails, so an agent learns nothing beyond the name.

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 when-to-use guidance at all, despite five schedule-management siblings (create_simple_schedule, update_schedule, list_schedules, get_schedule, delete_schedule) that an agent must choose among. The implicit 'standard vs simple' distinction is never explained.

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