Dpanel Cron Create

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful constraints beyond schema: trigger_type is limited to cron|event|manual and spec is a cron expression only when trigger=cron. It says nothing about required permissions, side effects, or failure modes for this mutation 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the core action plus the trigger_type constraint are front-loaded. Terse but every sentence carries information.

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 create/mutation tool with a nested 'option' object and no annotations, the description covers the key conditional logic and defers option details to a sibling (dpanel_cron_template). Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but permissions, error handling, and the option fields themselves remain unaddressed.

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 must compensate, and it meaningfully explains three of four params: trigger_type's enum values, spec's meaning and conditional applicability, and where to find the option structure. Only 'title' is left unexplained, which is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('创建计划任务' / create a scheduled task), which clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented cron siblings like dpanel_cron_list and dpanel_cron_detail. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Implicitly routes the agent to dpanel_cron_template to learn the 'option' structure, which is a useful pointer. However, it gives no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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