set_schedule

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (destructive/idempotent), and the description adds material context beyond them: the NAS-wide toggle applies to any Download Station user, the write requires a manager/admin account, and a refused write leaves nothing applied (atomic failure). This is precisely the extra behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph that opens with the action, then answers the questions an agent would ask (are params optional, what are the formats, what permissions are needed). No sentence is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps: mutation semantics, permission requirements, failure behavior, and all field formats. Nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters — and it does: it documents the enabled/emule_enabled toggles, the exact 168-char schedule_plan format with per-character semantics, and the KB/s units plus '0 = unlimited' for both rate fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Set the Download Station schedule'. It clearly contrasts with the read-only sibling get_schedule and with set_download_config by scoping the resource to the schedule itself.

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?

Explains partial-update semantics ('only what you pass gets updated') and the permission context needed, which tells an agent when this call will succeed. It does not explicitly name the alternative (get_schedule) for reading the current plan, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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