conduyt_create_report_schedule

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load; it delivers real behavioral context by disclosing that the delivery runs with the creator's visibility — a crucial permission/data-exposure trait — plus a hard prerequisite (reports export). It still doesn't mention what happens on delivery failure or how outside-workspace recipients are handled.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the permission scope and prerequisite. No filler.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, permission model, and prerequisite but omits enum/cadence mechanics, defaults, and error or duplicate-schedule behavior the agent would want before calling.

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 75% and the description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond it. With the schema doing most of the work, baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (schedule), resource (saved report), and delivery mechanism (email on a cadence), which clearly separates it from list/update/delete_report_schedule. It doesn't explicitly name the closest sibling update_report_schedule, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Needs reports export' implies a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs update_report_schedule, nor any guidance about choosing cadence values or what to do if a schedule already exists. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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