保存额度窗口预热

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context by emphasizing that no Codex scheduled task is created and that the settings are lightweight. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose what side effects do occur, such as overwriting existing settings or persistence behavior.

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?

One concise, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with a valuable scope clarification. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too minimal. It does not explain parameter semantics, return behavior, or the relationship to sibling quota_resumer tools. An agent has enough to guess the tool's purpose but not enough to invoke it confidently with correct parameter values.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It vaguely hints at scheduleMode via 'date or weekly schedule', but it does not explain the meaning or relationship of enabled, weekdays, time, timezone, message, or date. With 7 parameters and 6 required, this is a significant gap.

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 states a specific action—saving lightweight quota-window prewarm settings for a date or weekly schedule—and clarifies a key boundary: it does not create a Codex scheduled task. This distinguishes it from task-creation workflows, though it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like quota_resumer_set_prewarm_state.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: use this when saving prewarm settings for a date/weekly schedule. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as quota_resumer_upsert_policy or quota_resumer_set_prewarm_state, and the only exclusion is that it does not create Codex scheduled tasks.

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