Set Micro schedule

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

Annotations already indicate mutation and idempotency, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the payload is 'non-secret configuration delivered to the active production Wasm deployment.' This tells the agent that changes affect production and warns against placing secrets in the payload.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the production-deployment context follows in a concise second sentence. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The description plus schema is arguably sufficient to invoke the tool, especially since output schema and annotations exist. However, it omits useful operational context such as the meaning of 'replace' for an existing schedule, and it relies heavily on the schema for parameter details due to low description coverage.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only clarifies the payload parameter ('bounded object payload is non-secret configuration'). It does not explain scheduleId, everyMinutes, enabled, or the confirmation requirement beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create or replace one interval schedule.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like micro_schedules, micro_schedule_remove, and micro_schedule_run, which list, delete, or run schedules rather than set them.

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 usage is implied by 'Create or replace one interval schedule' and the production deployment context, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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