sigma_create_report_schedule

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not bear the full burden, but it adds no additional behavioral context such as required permissions, scheduling cadence, or side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency.

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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified and does not earn its place. It lacks critical details about the request body or schedule configuration, so conciseness here is a detriment rather than a strength.

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?

The tool involves a nested object body and has zero schema description coverage, yet the description provides no context about how to structure the schedule, what fields are required, or what happens after creation. Even with an output schema present, the description is wholly inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions a 'report' but does not explain the 'body' object, which is open-ended (additionalProperties: true) and likely contains critical schedule settings. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 'Create a scheduled export for a report' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sigma_list_report_schedules (listing schedules) and sigma_export_report (one-time export). It unambiguously identifies the action and target.

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 (when you need to create a schedule), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It could benefit from noting that this is for report schedules specifically, versus workbook schedules.

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