schedule_consolidation

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

No annotations are available, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'schedule' and 'periodic' but fails to explain whether calling the tool again replaces an existing schedule, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur (e.g., resource usage). The 'dry_run' parameter suggests a preview mode, but this is not highlighted.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient but could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points for behavioral notes) to improve scannability. 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?

The description covers the core function, but given the complexity of scheduling (persistence, idempotency, cancellation) and the lack of an output schema, it leaves gaps. The schema explains parameters well, but the agent lacks information on how to cancel the schedule or what happens on repeated invocations.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds context about consolidation tasks (dedup, decay, cleanup) which loosely aligns with parameters like run_p1 and run_p2, but it does not add specific parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. The default values and descriptions in the schema are sufficient.

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 verb 'Schedule', the resource 'memory consolidation', and specifies the scope 'periodic'. It includes specific tasks (dedup, decay, cleanup) which distinguishes it from one-time consolidation tools like 'consolidate_memories' and cancellation tools like 'stop_consolidation'.

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 the tool is for scheduling periodic maintenance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'consolidate_memories' for immediate runs. No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided, though the sibling list offers context.

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