add_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the input options but does not explain side effects (e.g., immediate activation), validation, or conflict handling. The 'add' operation is implied but lacks context on outcomes like whether the schedule is enabled by default or what happens on duplicate name.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the parameter alternatives. Information is front-loaded and well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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?

Given the 9 parameters and lack of output schema/annotations, the description covers the core combinatorial logic but misses behavioral details (e.g., if created schedules are active, what the response contains). It is adequate but not exhaustive for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 0%, so the description provides vital semantics: it groups parameters into exclusive alternatives (cron/at/days+time; template/text), explains 'cron (5-field)' and 'at (ISO datetime)', and clarifies template vs text. However, it does not explain the required 'name', nor 'vars' and 'tags', leaving some parameters ambiguous.

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 uses 'Add a new post schedule' which clearly specifies the action (add) and resource (post schedule). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_schedules, remove_schedule, etc., by focusing on creation. The mention of timing and content alternatives further clarifies its purpose.

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 clear usage context: it is for adding a new schedule, requiring one timing input (cron, at, or days+time) and one content input (template or text). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like enable_schedule, but the sibling names imply those alternatives.

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