schedule_todo

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this tool modifies state. The description adds minimal new behavioral context: it mentions 'creating a work slot' but does not disclose whether this overwrites existing schedules, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. For a destructive tool, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose in a single sentence. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated clauses) for easier parsing by an AI.

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 complexity of the locator parameter and the destructive nature (destructiveHint=true), the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers the basic purpose but omits information about prerequisites, error conditions, or the relationship with other tools like 'unschedule_todo'. The presence of an output schema compensates somewhat, but more context would improve completeness.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., locator variants, date/dueDate timestamps). The tool description adds a summary but no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Schedule', the resource 'Planner ToDo', and the method 'by raw todoId or human locator'. It also states the outcome: 'creating a work slot with ToDo title, description, and visibility metadata'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_todo' (which creates a todo without scheduling) and 'unschedule_todo' (which removes a schedule).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the action is clear, there is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., the todo must exist) or when to prefer 'create_todo' first. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context.

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