goalstory_create_scheduled_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a scheduling operation (implying a write/mutation) but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether scheduling is recurring or one-time, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, though it could potentially be structured to separate purpose from parameter mentions for even better clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'scheduling' entails (e.g., frequency, notification behavior), what the tool returns, or error scenarios. Given the complexity of scheduling operations, more contextual information would be helpful for the agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'goal ID and the desired time settings (hour and minute)' but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining that 'minute' is implied in timeSettings or clarifying timezone handling). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Schedule automatic story generation') and the target resource ('for a specific goal'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'goalstory_create_story' (which likely creates stories immediately rather than scheduling them), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goalstory_create_story' or 'goalstory_update_scheduled_story'. It mentions required parameters but doesn't explain prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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