schedule_goal

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it explains that the agent runs unattended, that scheduling serves as authorization, and that it uses durable cron (survives restarts, no history bloat). This goes beyond basic functionality.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose. Subsequent sentences add critical details without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, cron scheduling), the description covers usage, parameters, behavioral nuances, and return value. It 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?

The description explains the 'cron_expression' parameter in detail with format (5-field cron UTC), examples, and meaning. The 'goal' parameter is clear from context. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates effectively, adding significant meaning.

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 action: 'Schedule an agent to run `goal` repeatedly on a cron schedule (UNATTENDED).' It specifies the verb 'schedule' and resource 'goal', and the 'UNATTENDED' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'run_goal' (which likely runs once with oversight).

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 context that scheduling is for unattended runs and warns that only trustable goals should be scheduled because there is no per-run approval. This implies when to use but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'run_goal' or 'get_status', leaving some ambiguity about when to schedule vs. run manually.

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