create_schedule

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the core mechanism—sending a command to the gateway on a schedule—and gives meaningful detail on time semantics, recurring timers, and autodelete one-shot behavior. It does not cover permissions, errors, or gateway connectivity requirements, but the main behavioral contract is transparent.

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 one-sentence summary is followed by a tight argument list where each entry earns its place. The detailed time examples and command payload examples are justified by the complete lack of schema descriptions. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 complex 8-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and key behavioral nuances such as weekly, timer, and recurring-timer expressions. It falls slightly short on operational context like error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when the gateway is unreachable, but it is sufficient for invoking the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates. Every parameter is explained with type, meaning, and usually a concrete example. The time parameter is especially well documented with multiple ISO 8601 formats, command_method is constrained to PUT/POST/DELETE, and command_body is shown with a JSON example.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a timed schedule that sends a command to the gateway.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from schedule read/delete/status siblings like get_schedule, delete_schedule, and set_schedule_status. It also separates it from create_rule, which would imply event-driven rule logic rather than timed commands.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_rule or set_schedule_status. It explains the arguments well but never states the intended use context, prerequisites, or cases where a different sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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