set_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 does disclose two non-obvious traits: batch updates are allowed and parent dates are never inherited by children (they are independent). It says nothing about permissions, partial-failure behavior, or what a successful call returns.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler; the operation is front-loaded and the inheritance caveat follows the core statement. Nothing needs trimming, though the list_elements pointer could be folded in more tightly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main semantic pitfalls (batch, independence, where to read current values) but leaves the agent without any notion of authorization, error handling, or result shape.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates partially by stating the updates array may hold one or many items. The due/start null-removes and omission-leaves-untouched semantics live only in the schema, and mapId receives no explanation beyond the schema text.

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 pair (attach/remove) and resource (element due and start dates), plus the batch scope ('1件でも複数件でもよい'). It is not explicitly distinguished from edit_element or update_task_status, so a sibling-differentiation claim would be overstated.

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?

Points the agent to list_elements for reading current dates, which is a genuine usage hint, but never says when this tool is preferred over edit_element or update_task_status for touching dates. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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