spraay_cron_create

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states 'Data persists in Supabase' and 'Costs $0.005 USDC.' Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write), idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description aligns with these and provides useful cost and persistence information. No contradiction.

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 sentences, all substantive. Front-loaded with purpose, then cron support, persistence, and cost. Every sentence earns its place with relevant information. No fluff or repetition.

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 4 parameters with nested objects and the presence of an output schema (indicated true), the description covers key aspects: purpose, cron standard, persistence, and cost. It doesn't detail error conditions or how to retrieve the cron ID for cancellation, but these are secondary. Overall, complete enough for effective 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 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by noting 'Supports standard 5-part cron expressions' and clarifying that the payload format matches the action's direct API call. This provides meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already adequately describes each parameter.

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: 'Create a scheduled job for recurring payments, DCA strategies, reminders, or any gateway action.' It specifies the resource (scheduled job) and provides concrete examples. It also mentions support for standard 5-part cron expressions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spraay_cron_cancel and spraay_cron_list.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about prerequisites, when not to use, or context for choosing this over other cron-related tools. The existence of siblings like spraay_cron_cancel and spraay_cron_list is implied but not addressed.

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