openclaw_cron_create

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses schedule varieties, optional delivery, and the disabled state parameter. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing jobs), authentication needs, or whether creation is synchronous. Adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering core functionality, schedule types, and delivery option. No extraneous words. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at return values (e.g., job ID) or confirmation. It does not. Also omits behavior on duplicate names. But it covers key aspects: parameters, schedule syntax, and delivery. Adequate but with gaps for a creation tool.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description adds context on schedule formats and delivery channels, but this largely echoes the parameter descriptions. Does not add meaning beyond schema; baseline 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 states the verb (create) and resource (cron job on OpenClaw server). It distinguishes from sibling cron tools (edit, delete, list) by focusing on creation. Mentions supported schedule types and optional delivery, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 when to use (scheduling tasks) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like openclaw_cron_edit or openclaw_cron_delete. No guidance on when NOT to use or prerequisites (e.g., server access). Context is clear but incomplete for a new agent.

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