Run Micro schedule now

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: each call enqueues one additional event, reinforcing the non-idempotent annotation. It also specifies that the event is authenticated and targets the active production deployment, which clarifies the side effect and auth-related context. It does not cover rate limits or further external consequences, but it goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key action, resource, and target are all present and immediately scannable.

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 three-parameter trigger tool with annotations and an output schema available, the description covers the core behavior and target sufficiently. It could clarify where scheduleId comes from or any prerequisites, but these are minor given the low parameter complexity and existing schema details.

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 already describes path and confirm, including the const:true constraint on confirm. scheduleId has only a pattern and no description, and the tool description does not elaborate on any parameter. With 67% schema coverage, the schema carries most of the weight, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning.

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 ('enqueue') and names the resource ('authenticated schedule event') scoped to the 'active production Wasm deployment'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling schedule tools such as micro_schedules, micro_schedule_set, and micro_schedule_remove.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no sibling tools or exclusions. The title and wording imply a one-off 'run now' action, but the usage context is left largely to inference.

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