schedule_recurring_task

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 useful behavioral traits: the server manages execution even when offline, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether schedules can be edited, error handling, or what happens on schedule conflicts, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second adds important behavioral context about offline execution.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, 63% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and offline execution but lacks details on permissions, error cases, return values, or how it differs from siblings beyond implicit distinctions.

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 63%, so the description must compensate but doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema. It mentions 'cron schedule' which aligns with cron_expression, but doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how source and branch interact) or provide additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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 specific action ('Schedule a Jules task to run automatically'), identifies the resource ('task'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for recurring tasks on a cron schedule, unlike one-time tasks (create_coding_task) or schedule management (delete_schedule, list_schedules).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to run automatically on a cron schedule') and implicitly distinguishes it from create_coding_task (which likely creates one-time tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like list_schedules for viewing existing schedules.

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