create_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission-rejection behavior and the on/off command timing, but it does not explain what 'replace' does to an existing slot (e.g., whether it silently overwrites), what the response is, or other mutation side effects.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the permission constraint follows logically as a secondary condition.

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?

Given the rich input schema (88% coverage) and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and permission constraint adequately. It is slightly incomplete on replace semantics and idempotency, which matters for a mutation tool, but it is not deficient overall.

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 high at 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters including slot range, labels, and command defaults. The description adds only a restatement of the onTs/offTs firing behavior, not new semantic detail beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: create or replace a device's schedule slot, with slot range 0-4 and the on/off firing behavior. Clear enough to identify the operation, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling update_schedule, which is a closely related mutation.

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?

Mentions a permission prerequisite (rejected if the calling key lacks permission for either command), which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus update_schedule, delete_schedule, or list_schedules, so usage must be inferred from the name and description.

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