Create Schedule

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds nothing beyond the cron format, which is already in the schema. It doesn't disclose whether multiple calls create multiple schedules, whether an existing schedule is overwritten, or any side effects beyond simply creating a schedule.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action. It includes the most important detail (cron format) and nothing superfluous.

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?

With 7 parameters including timezone and retry settings, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. The agent gets no sense of persistence behavior, return value, or failure modes, leaving significant ambiguity for a create operation.

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 description repeats the 5-field cron format already documented in the schema's cron_expression parameter. No additional meaning is added for timezone, retries, message, or user/agent IDs beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 action ('schedule an agent') and specifies the cron expression format. It is distinct from the sibling schedule tools in name (py_schedule_create vs trigger/delete/list), though the description itself doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyzr_schedule_trigger, lyzr_schedule_pause, or lyzr_schedule_delete. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as the agent needing to exist or how to later manage the schedule.

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