Create a cron job

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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior: cron pipelines run with event 'cron' so event-restricted steps/secrets don't apply, illustrated by a push-only cron job doing nothing. It stops short of naming permissions or duplicate-name behavior, but the disclosed event semantics are substantial.

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 sentences, first is front-loaded with purpose and second packs a valuable caveat with a concrete example. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to supply behavioral context, and it does. The main omissions are usage routing to sibling cron tools and permission requirements, which are not covered elsewhere.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter syntax or format details. The cron-event note gives context for how schedule interacts with pipeline events, but the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly.

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 opening 'Schedules a pipeline run' gives a concrete verb and resource, and the 'event "cron"' clarification distinguishes it from manual pipeline triggers. It relies on the title/name to make clear this creates a persistent cron job rather than triggering one immediately, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies the use case: recurring scheduled pipeline runs via cron event. However, it never states when to prefer create_cron over update_cron, run_cron, delete_cron, or trigger_pipeline, and gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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