tealkit_schedule_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the task is 'persistent' and 'recurring' and can target a Server or NAS, which is real behavioral context beyond the name. However, it says nothing about side effects, permissions, whether scheduling the same task_name replaces an existing job, or failure behavior.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the key facts front-loaded: action, persistence/recurrence, and target. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.

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?

All three required parameters are documented in the schema and no output schema is needed for a creation call. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose more about persistence semantics and conflict/duplicate handling; it stops at a one-line summary.

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 all four parameters (cron, profile, task_name, command_or_prompt) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (schedules), resource (persistent, recurring background task / cron job), and execution target (TealKit Server or NAS). It does not name the sibling tealkit_run_background it should be contrasted with, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With a sibling like tealkit_run_background (one-shot execution) present, the description never tells the agent to choose this tool only for recurring/persistent jobs rather than immediate runs.

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