manage_scheduled_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It meaningfully discloses that create/update are code-execution writes with special safety requirements, and the 'fenced' label hints at guarded behavior. However, it does not clarify whether delete also requires confirm (schema says yes) or explain what 'fenced' actually means, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 crisp sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action list and resource; the second adds a targeted safety note. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, 5 actions, no annotations or output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It lists the actions and flags important safety, but leaves 'fenced' undefined and doesn't mention dry_run or the fact that delete also requires confirm per the schema.

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 62%, leaving some parameters (name, command, uuid) undocumented. The description adds value by explaining the confirm requirement for create/update, but it omits delete's confirm requirement and does not help clarify the undocumented parameters.

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 opens with a clear list of specific actions (List, create, update, delete, view executions) tied to a specific resource (scheduled tasks on an application or service). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_storage or manage_backups.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is relevant (scheduled tasks on applications/services) and provides a key usage constraint (create/update are code-execution writes requiring --allow-destructive and confirm:true). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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