Schedule agent run

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

Annotations include openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavior: 'billed like any run' (cost), 'appears in list_runs when it fires' (observability), and 'invoked once, later' (timing). This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention cancellation or auth.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by timing options and the alternative for recurring schedules. No fluff, every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the tool's role, behavior, billing, visibility in list_runs, and the alternative tool for recurring schedules. With 5 parameters fully described in schema and no output schema required, this is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description reinforces the mutual exclusivity of delay_seconds and fire_at, but does not add new parameter-specific information beyond the schema.

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 'Schedule a ONE-SHOT deferred run of an agent' with specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes itself from create_workflow by emphasizing one-shot vs recurring. It also explains the run will appear in list_runs, adding further clarity.

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?

It explicitly says 'For a recurring schedule, use create_workflow with a cron trigger instead,' providing a direct alternative. The context of when to use (deferred one-shot) is clear, and it indicates the choice between delay_seconds and fire_at.

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