Create Pipeline Schedule

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that — the timezone default and the version gate on inputs — but says nothing about required permissions, duplicate-schedule behavior, or what the created schedule looks like.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two most common gotchas (timezone, ref ambiguity). No filler, though the sentences are terse enough that some connective context is missing.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the highest-risk pitfalls (timezone default, ref disambiguation, version-gated inputs). Gaps remain around project_id/active semantics and what is returned, but an agent can call it correctly from what is given.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains cron_timezone's default, ref's full-path form, and the {name, value} shape plus version constraint for inputs, but leaves description, active, and project_id entirely undocumented.

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?

"Create a recurring pipeline from a cron expression" gives a specific verb (create), resource (pipeline schedule) and the defining attribute (recurring/cron), which implicitly separates it from gitlab_create_pipeline. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating that a one-off run should use gitlab_create_pipeline instead.

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?

Provides useful call-time context: cron_timezone defaults to UTC, use a full ref like refs/heads/main for branch/tag ambiguity, and inputs require GitLab 18.1+. It does not say when to choose this over gitlab_create_pipeline or gitlab_create_pipeline_trigger, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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