ds_online_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral effects, but it only says 'activate' without explaining what that entails—whether it changes status, triggers runs, or requires prerequisites. This is insufficient for a state-changing tool.

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, terse sentence and is front-loaded with the action. However, its brevity omits essential context, making it concise by default rather than through strategic editing.

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 simple mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description says almost nothing beyond the tool's name. It lacks parameter semantics and prerequisite information, so an agent would need external knowledge to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description provides no context for the two parameters (project_name, schedule_id). An agent cannot infer how to find schedule_id or what project_name refers to from this description alone.

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 a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('schedule'), clarified by 'bring online.' This clearly distinguishes it from ds_offline_schedule, which is the direct inverse action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling ds_offline_schedule implies the opposite action, but the description does not explicitly state when activation is appropriate, such as after creating a schedule or to resume a paused one.

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