Add Program

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a program is added with scheduling options; it does not disclose persistence effects, validation behavior, duplicate-name handling, or whether the controller must be reachable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and the two scheduling modes, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's purpose at a glance.

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?

This is a complex 10-parameter creation tool with conditional fields depending on schedule_type, and the description alone leaves out prerequisites such as obtaining station IDs from get_stations and the exact relationship between schedule_type and the conditional parameters. The rich input schema and output schema cover much of the remaining detail, but some contextual gaps remain.

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 10 parameters. The description's mention of 'weekly or interval scheduling' adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schedule_type enum and field descriptions already provide, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('new watering program') and states the core distinction between weekly and interval scheduling. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_programs, get_program, and delete_program.

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 intended use—creating a new watering program—is implied by the phrase 'Add a new watering program,' but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites like obtaining valid station_ids mentioned.

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