skill_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description has full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals two constraints (60s min interval, 20 active schedule max), but omits whether scheduling is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing schedule?), what auth is needed, or side effects. For a creation tool with no annotations, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be sharper by stating the action more precisely and omitting the constraint details (which are also in schema descriptions), but overall efficient.

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 complexity (7 parameters, a mutation tool with no output schema), the description is somewhat sparse. It covers the scheduling constraint but lacks high-level context like what happens on success (returns schedule ID?), error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools like 'skill_schedule_cancel'. With no output schema, a brief note on return values would improve completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some parameter context (e.g., min interval and max active schedules), but the bulk of parameter meaning already comes from the schema's field descriptions. The description does not add significant new semantics beyond what is in the schema.

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 purpose: 'Schedule a skill for recurring cron-based execution.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('schedule a skill') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'skill_schedule_cancel' and 'skill_schedule_list' by defining the core scheduling 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?

The description provides some usage constraints (min interval, max active schedules) but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context (e.g., user must have an owned skill). The usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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