create_interval_schedule

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses that without confirm=true the call 'is a no-op,' returns success=false, and requires the job to be allowlisted — exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations do not carry. It also states the persistence semantics with 'Mutating operation: persists a new interval schedule.' This fully aligns with destructiveHint and adds substantial value above it.

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 definition front-loads purpose in the first sentence and keeps the behavioral prose tightly scoped with a clear paragraph break before the Args list. However, the Args block duplicates schema descriptions for all five parameters at 100% coverage, and 'Requires confirm=true' is restated in the next paragraph — minor but real 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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation gate, no-op behavior, allowlist constraint, and post-create lifecycle routing, which are the critical decision factors. It only partially describes the response ('Returns success=false unless confirm=true') and doesn't address duplicate names or error cases, but since the schema documents all parameters, the remaining gaps are minor.

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%, with all five parameters already documented, so the baseline is 3. The Args section restates the schema text nearly verbatim ('name: Unique schedule identifier', 'interval_seconds: Recurrence period between runs, in seconds') without adding new semantic meaning. The one behavioral nuance, the confirm no-op, already exists in the schema's own confirm description, so the description adds no information beyond the structured schema.

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 opening line 'Create an allowlisted recurring job' names a specific verb and resource, and the second paragraph clarifies it 'persists a new interval schedule that runs job_name... every interval_seconds,' distinctly a creation operation. It explicitly differentiates itself from lifecycle siblings by naming set_schedule_enabled and delete_schedule as separate operations, so an agent can tell them apart without opening their schemas.

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 gives direct routing: 'Use set_schedule_enabled to pause it, or delete_schedule to remove it,' which tells the agent what to use instead once a schedule exists. The allowlist and confirm=true requirements set clear preconditions for invoking this tool. It stops short of contrasting with the run_schedule_now sibling or one-off execution, so the 'when not to use' guidance is partial.

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