add_timer

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description explicitly states that it mutates the timer configuration and that timers persist across restarts, adding valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear first sentence, bullet-like examples for scheduling, a note on constraints, and cross-references to sibling tools. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and mutation behavior, but it omits any mention of what the tool returns (e.g., success indication, timer ID). With no output schema, this gap may leave the agent unsure how to handle the response.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by providing examples for cron_expr and interval_seconds, explaining the once flag, and noting the constraint that at least one of cron_expr or interval_seconds must be provided. The message parameter is required and self-explanatory, but no additional detail is given.

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 tool adds a timer task with a message at scheduled times, and specifies two scheduling methods. It mentions related sibling tools (list_timers, remove_timer) but does not explicitly distinguish from add_wake_rule, which is a close sibling also dealing with scheduling.

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 provides clear usage context: supports cron and interval scheduling, with examples; notes that at least one must be provided; explains the 'once' flag; and points to list_timers and remove_timer for management. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like add_wake_rule.

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