schedule_set

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is mutating, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the upsert semantics of create-or-update, but gives no detail on side effects, overwrite behavior, or validation. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 filler or repetition. It is concise, though slightly too sparse to fully support a 10-parameter scheduling 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?

The tool has 10 parameters, two mutually exclusive schedule modes, and no output schema, but the description provides no guidance on cron versus frequency, per-mode required fields, or how an existing schedule is affected. The schema helps, but the description alone is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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?

All 10 parameters have schema-level descriptions, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds little beyond the notion of 'specific task,' which maps to taskId, but does not compensate for any missing schema detail.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Create or update a schedule for a specific task.' This unambiguously identifies the operation and distinguishes it from read/delete schedule siblings like schedule_list and schedule_delete.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, nor does it explain when to choose cron mode versus frequency mode, leaving the agent to infer the correct usage context.

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