connect_schedule_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the behavioral effect: adds a READ arc, blocks machine during off-periods, items wait in queue, processing resumes when active window starts. While comprehensive, it doesn't explicitly mention side effects or prerequisites beyond the calling order, leaving minor gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise explanation of the mechanism and clear ordering instructions. Each sentence adds value, and the Args section is well-structured. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (2 simple parameters, clear prerequisites), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, how it works, and when to call it. The output schema exists (though not shown), so return values are covered. Complete for practical use.

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 0%, so description must compensate. The Args section explains each parameter: schedule_name is the name from add_scheduled_availability, machine_name from add_machine or add_breakdown. This adds essential context beyond the schema's minimal definitions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Gate a machine with a shift schedule via READ arc.' It specifies the type of arc, the effect on the machine, and how it controls flow during off-periods. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'add_arc' or 'connect_blocking_consumer' by being specific to schedule-based gating.

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 explicitly states ordering: 'Call AFTER both add_scheduled_availability and add_machine / add_breakdown.' It also clarifies the use case (to enable schedule-based blocking) and implicitly when not to use it (if not using schedule gating). This provides clear guidance for correct invocation.

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