Roo — set scheduled redirect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it handles this well. It explains the switch-point semantics ('at time T the redirect switches to url and stays until the next waypoint'), the fall-through behavior before the first waypoint, and the important limitation about timezone and per-waypoint end fields. It does not cover idempotency, response, or error behavior, but the core operation is transparent.

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: the first phrase names the tool type, the next explains the rule/action, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, non-redundant behavior or limitation. There is no fluff, ESL padding, or repeated schema text at the top level.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: temporal switch behavior, fall-through, and unsupported end/timezone handling. Minor gaps remain, such as whether waypoints replace or merely append to existing scheduled waypoints, and what success/response looks like, but the core invocation criteria are covered.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The top-level description adds interpretive context about what a waypoint means and calls out the missing timezone/end-field semantics, but this mostly restates the embedded waypoint description rather than providing substantial new parameter-level details. This matches the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'attach or replace waypoints on the shortlink', and immediately frames the tool as 'time-based redirect'. This clearly sets it apart from the sibling roo_set_click_count_redirect and other shortlink-manipulation tools. It does more than restate the tool name/title.

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 phrase 'Time-based redirect' gives clear context for when this tool applies, and the limitation 'Roo has no timezone or per-waypoint end field' hints at conditions to check. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer an alternative sibling tool, such as roo_set_click_count_redirect or roo_set_preview_link, or when not to use this tool.

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