unlock_add_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Add') but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, reversibility, or any constraints such as schedule uniqueness. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no fluff, making it concise and front-loaded. While it is appropriately brief, it could benefit from additional context without being verbose, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

Despite the schema covering parameters, the description lacks critical context for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations. It does not explain the workflow (e.g., project must be tracked first), what constitutes a valid schedule, or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 input schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter relationships or business rules, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('vesting schedule') with context ('for a tracked project'), which clearly differentiates it from unlock_add_project. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in top-scoring examples.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like the need for a project to already exist (via unlock_add_project), nor any exclusions or alternative tools.

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