schedule_recurring

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 mentions authentication requirements, which is helpful, but fails to describe other critical traits: whether this is a mutation (likely yes, given 'Set up'), what happens on success/failure, if there are rate limits, or if changes are reversible. For a tool with 6 required parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and resource, the second notes prerequisites. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., combining sentences).

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?

Given the complexity (6 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling), usage differentiation from siblings, and any information about return values. For a scheduling tool with significant user impact, this leaves too many unknowns for the agent.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the context ('dog walking schedule'), which doesn't enhance understanding of individual parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't compensate with extra value.

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 action ('Set up a recurring dog walking schedule') and resource ('with a specific walker on wagwalking.com'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'book_walk' or 'search_walkers', which likely handle one-time bookings or discovery rather than recurring schedules.

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 mentions prerequisites ('Requires WAG_EMAIL and WAG_PASSWORD') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'book_walk' for single walks or 'search_walkers' for finding walkers. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, the agent lacks clear usage context.

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