chaprola_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions important limits (max 10 schedules/user, 15-min minimum cron interval) which are useful. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like idempotency on duplicate names, the underlying persistence of schedules, or what the response contains (e.g., schedule ID for later management). The lack of annotation coverage raises the burden, and this description only partially meets it.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Create a scheduled job') and then a brief, useful constraint. Every word earns its place; no wasted or redundant content.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, nested body, enum) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It would benefit from mentioning the returned schedule object or how to reference created schedules with siblings, and possibly cron timezone behavior. The schema covers parameters, but the high-level context around scheduling lifecycle is missing.

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 100%, so parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The main description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it also does not need to. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not add meaningful value over the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Create a scheduled job') and the resource ('a Chaprola endpoint on a recurring cron'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chaprola_schedule_list and chaprola_schedule_delete by focusing on creation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: if you want to schedule a recurring Chaprola endpoint invocation, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use direct endpoint calls or how to manage existing schedules via list/delete siblings. The constraints (max 10 schedules, 15-min interval) offer some guidance but not enough for a 4.

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