update_worker_cron

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

Annotations already provide hints (idempotent, not read-only). The description adds context about the confirm gate and preview behavior, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explicitly state that crons replaces all existing triggers (though schema implies it). No contradictions.

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 sentences, each essential: first states purpose, second explains confirm gate. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavior and preview return. It might mention prerequisites (worker existence) but that is implied by script_name. Overall sufficient given simplicity and sibling 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 coverage is 100% with thorough parameter descriptions. The description reinforces the confirm parameter's role but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Set the cron triggers (schedules) for a Worker script.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools, as no other sibling deals with Worker cron. The confirm gate detail adds further clarity.

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 explains the confirm gate requirement, which guides usage. It does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, but no cron-related alternatives exist among siblings. Some implicit guidance from the schema (script_name required) and the two-step process.

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