Manage scheduled tasks

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

The annotation destructiveHint=false conflicts with the description listing 'delete' as an action, which implies a destructive operation. The description does not explain any other behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permission requirements) and relies on the contradictory annotation. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the action list. There is no filler or redundant information, making it concise and easy to scan.

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 10-parameter tool with five actions and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what each action returns, how resource/uuid are used, or the meaning of enabled/timeout/container. The contradiction with annotations further undermines the completeness of the behavioral context.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It explains that create takes name, command, and frequency, and that all but list/create require task_uuid, adding meaning to key parameters. However, parameters like enabled, timeout, container, and resource remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, limiting compensation.

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 identifies the resource as 'scheduled tasks (cron jobs)' for application/service and enumerates the specific actions (list, create, update, delete, list_executions), giving clear operational scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling resource-management tools by focusing on scheduled tasks. The verb 'manage' is a bit broad, but the action list adds enough specificity.

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 states the targeted resource types (application/service) and lists the available actions, providing clear context for when this tool applies. It also notes that all actions except list/create require task_uuid, which is a useful usage rule. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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