backlog_schedule_cron

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at behavior ('parentless work surfaces as unfiled at wakeup') but does not disclose whether scheduling overrides existing crons, is destructive, requires permissions, or any side effects.

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 with no redundant words. It immediately states purpose and adds a key behavioral nuance. Consistent with front-loading best practices.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain schedule format, command string semantics, or the effect of the enabled flag. The mention of parent_id is helpful but incomplete.

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 14% (only 'as' parameter described). The description adds meaning only for parent_id. Essential parameters like schedule, command, content, and enabled are left unexplained, which is insufficient given low coverage.

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 'Use when scheduling recurring project intake,' which specifies the verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like backlog_pause_cron and backlog_resume_cron, but does not explicitly contrast with backlog_create_work for one-time intake.

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?

Provides when-to-use condition ('scheduling recurring project intake') and a usage tip ('Pass parent_id when known; parentless work surfaces as unfiled at wakeup'). However, lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among siblings.

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