schedule_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create or update'—a mutation—but does not explain whether it is an upsert, how it decides between create and update, what happens if the task does not exist, or whether it replaces the entire schedule. No return value, error, or permission details are provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action efficiently. However, given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, two modes), slightly more detail could be warranted without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The tool is complex: 10 parameters, two mutually exclusive scheduling modes (cron vs frequency), and no output schema or annotations. The one-sentence description does not explain the conditional logic between cron and frequency, the effect of an update, or any return/error behavior. It is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently without thoroughly inspecting the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is self-explanatory, including conditional fields and enums.

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 action (create or update) and the resource (a schedule for a specific task). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like schedule_list, schedule_delete, and schedule_describe, which are read/delete operations.

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 usage for creating or updating schedules but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. The sibling context suggests it is the only write tool for schedules, but the description itself does not state this.

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