enable_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action (re-enabling) but fails to disclose what happens if the schedule is already enabled, if it doesn't exist, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it is under-specified, lacking parameter details that would improve usability. Still, it is front-loaded and to the point.

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 simple tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'name' means, nor does it provide context about preconditions or expected outcomes. The overall agent understanding would be limited without additional inference.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter (e.g., what it refers to, format, constraints). The agent receives no help in understanding how to properly invoke the tool.

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 'Re-enable a disabled post schedule' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like disable_schedule (opposite) and add_schedule (new schedule creation).

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when a schedule is disabled and needs to be re-enabled) but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not scenarios. The context from sibling tools helps, but no direct guidance is provided.

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