create_recurring_task

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world. The description adds genuine behavior beyond them: each instance receives the previous instance's summary. However, for a non-idempotent creation tool it doesn't address duplicate handling or the ongoing lifecycle (that a schedule must later be updated/deleted), leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by usage, with zero filler. Appropriately sized for the tool.

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?

Covers purpose and use-case well, but for a 13-parameter tool with no output schema it omits what is returned (e.g. the created schedule identifier) and how the schedule is later managed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 all 13 parameters with formats, defaults, and examples. The description adds only marginal meaning (the previous-summary behavior maps to description_template's {{.PrevSummary}}), consistent with the baseline 3.

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+resource ('Creates a recurring task schedule') and explains the mechanism ('automatically spawns task instances on a schedule'), which separates it from create_task and the recurring-schedule siblings. It doesn't name an alternative explicitly, but the recurring scope is unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it ('Use this for regular automated work: weekly reports, daily checks, periodic audits'), giving concrete scenarios. It provides no when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g. update_recurring_schedule, trigger_recurring_now).

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