schedule_technician

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool populates the scheduling form and that final submission requires user confirmation, a meaningful workflow trait: the call does not fully complete the appointment and a user step remains. It does not disclose broader side effects, but the key nuance is present.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the critical confirmation caveat. No redundant phrasing or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter action with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the core purpose and the confirmation requirement but omits what the caller should expect in the result — a form preview, a confirmation screen, or a success message. It also does not fully explain the multi-step nature beyond the confirmation requirement, leaving the agent to infer how to proceed after the call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The schema itself documents username/password, contact_phone, preferred_date, and issue_description, though preferred_time's schema text is mislabeled as a date rather than a time; the tool description does not correct this.

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 and resource — 'Schedule a Spectrum technician visit' — and scopes it to 'service issues, installation, or equipment problems,' which clearly distinguishes it from the read-only/billing sibling tools like get_account_overview and pay_bill. No ambiguity about what operation is being invoked.

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?

It provides clear context for when to invoke: any service issue, installation, or equipment problem requiring a technician. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use the tool, such as using check_outages for outages instead. Thus it gives clear context without explicit exclusions.

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