schedule_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the parameter semantics but fails to explain behavioral traits such as whether scheduling is one-time only, confirmation or error handling, or side effects like overwriting existing schedules. The allowed task names are helpful, but core behavioral context is missing.

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 brief and structured with a lead sentence followed by bullet-point parameter docs. Every sentence is informative with no 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail returns. However, it lacks mention of permissions, scheduling limits, or error cases. The parameter explanations are adequate but leave out real-world constraints.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains task_name values, run_at format, delay_minutes meaning, and task_params as optional JSON. This goes beyond the schema types, though it could clarify mutual exclusivity of run_at and delay_minutes.

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 verb 'Schedule' and the resource 'task', and it specifies the two modes (specific time or delay). It lists the allowed task names, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_scheduled and list_scheduled.

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 implies usage by stating the tool schedules a task at a time or after a delay, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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