pipeline_create_schedule

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating but not destructive operation, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'create'. It does not disclose whether the schedule becomes active immediately, whether it is idempotent, what validations occur, or what side effects are triggered.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is concise, though so terse that it does not carry additional guidance or context.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, required identifiers, and schedule-type-dependent semantics, but the description gives no context about return values, activation behavior, or how schedule types interact with parameters. With no output schema and no usage guidance, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it in edge cases.

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%, so all 10 parameters are documented with types, formats, enums, and defaults in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Create') and names the resource ('a schedule for a pipeline'), so the operation is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pipeline_update_schedule or pipeline_delete_schedule, but the create/update/delete distinction is reasonably inferable from the name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus pipeline_update_schedule, pipeline_delete_schedule, or pipeline_list_schedules. It does not mention prerequisites such as an existing pipeline or workspace, nor does it describe behavior when a schedule already exists.

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