web_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: first execution only establishes a baseline (no change, no notification), paused tasks retain state but stop being executed, and changes trigger a webhook POST. It does not say whether delete is permanent or whether action=run blocks, leaving gaps on the more destructive and long-running operations.

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?

Front-loaded prose establishes the concept before the Args block, and the per-parameter lines are dense with no filler. The block is long but justified given nine undocumented parameters; the Args duplication is a necessity, not 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?

For a nine-parameter, annotation-free tool with an output schema, the description covers semantics, defaults, constraints, and lifecycle behavior. Remaining gaps are error/permission behavior (e.g., webhook or proxy failures) and whether delete is irreversible.

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 Args section is the only documentation — and it covers all nine parameters with defaults, ranges (interval_s 60~604800, default 3600), the valid action list, the watch/index kind values, and conditional rules (id required for everything but list/create; selector only valid for kind=watch). This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("管理定时监控任务") and immediately scopes it: the task records what to watch, how often, and who to notify, dispatching to web_watch / web_index. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from direct-scrape siblings by stating "任务本身不抓取" and naming the daemon that actually executes.

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?

It gives the default action (list), the manual-execution path (action=run), and the dedupe rule (same kind+url+selector is one task, repeat create = update). What's missing is an explicit statement of when to call web_watch / web_index directly instead of scheduling, which is only implied by the daemon note.

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