Add a schedule event using natural language or explicit time. Specify description, optional location, and confirm to complete.
新增日程（自然语言或 --at 显式时间）。对应 CLI：schedule add。参数：text*(日程描述（自然语言）), at(显式时间 YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm), loc(地点)。写操作须 confirm:true。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | 显式时间 YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm | |
| loc | No | 地点 | |
| text | Yes | 日程描述（自然语言） | |
| confirm | No | 写操作必传 true（安全门） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and requires confirm:true as a safety gate, which is critical for agent behavior. However, it does not describe return values, failure modes, or side effects beyond creation. The disclosure of the confirm requirement is a positive, but the description could be richer.
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 concise, with a single opening sentence stating purpose and a parameter list. It front-loads the core functionality. However, the parameter list duplicates the schema, which is redundant, but the overall length is appropriate.
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 write operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the confirm requirement. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and does not specify behavior when confirm is false or what the response contains. Given the complexity and the presence of many similar add tools, this is a notable gap.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the parameter list but adds minimal extra meaning, such as highlighting the natural language capability and the explicit time format. It does not compensate beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool adds a schedule (新增日程) and mentions natural language or explicit time input. It also maps to the CLI command 'schedule add', making the purpose unambiguous. The resource and verb are specific, distinguishing it from generic add tools by its focus on schedules.
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 implies usage for schedule creation but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling add tools like wb_add or wb_todo_add. It provides no exclusions or conditions. The mention of the CLI equivalent is helpful but doesn't offer selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.