Repeat a grid

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the real behavioral traits: each run consumes the grid's credits, runs occur around 7 am Paris time, and the schedule auto-stops with an account email when the balance is exhausted. That cost and failure-mode context is exactly what the annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then the cadence and parameter conventions, then cost and stop behavior. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers timing, cost, and termination, which is the important operational surface. It stops short of stating whether weekday and month_day are mutually exclusive per frequency, or how an agent later identifies the created schedule for update_schedule/delete_schedule.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it largely does: weekday is 1=Monday through 7=Sunday, month_day spans 1 to 28, and frequency is weekly or monthly. It also clarifies that grid_id refers to an existing grid whose listing, keyword, format and radius are reused, though it does not explain grid_id's UUID form.

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 specific verb and resource: rerun an existing grid on a recurring weekly or monthly cadence, which separates it from the immediate-run siblings run_grid and run_grids. It never names update_schedule, delete_schedule or list_schedules, so the boundary with the other schedule-management tools is left to inference.

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?

Recurring execution is implied by 'every week ... or every month', so an agent can infer this is the tool for creating a standing schedule rather than a one-off run. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to update_schedule/delete_schedule for managing an existing schedule.

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