create_agent_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the surface purpose. For a mutation that creates an ongoing job with per-run credit consumption (available_credits), the description never says whether the schedule starts running immediately, what happens on duplicate names, whether notification failures block a run, or what the tool returns. Only the 'optional email and Slack notifications' clause adds real behavioral color.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the cadence list and notification clause both earn their place. It could be marginally tighter, but nothing is redundant.

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 20-parameter creation tool with six required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is minimum viable: it conveys what gets created and on what cadence but leaves the agent to infer startup behavior, return value, and the interaction between starts_at, ends_at, and the recurrence_* fields. The internal schema is well documented, which offsets part of the gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including enums, defaults, and formats; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating the cadence options. It does flag that notifications are optional, which helps an agent decide which of the three Slack/email parameters are safe to omit, but that is marginal against a 20-parameter 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a recurring Rolli Agent report') and enumerates the supported cadences (daily, weekly, monthly, one-time) plus the notification channels, which maps directly onto recurrence_type's enum. The word 'Create' implicitly distinguishes it from the large family of update_/delete_/pause_/resume_/list_ schedule siblings, though it never names one explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'recurring ... report' suggests this is the setup step rather than an execution step, which contrasts loosely with start_agent_run and the *_agent_schedule mutation siblings. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose a schedule versus a one-off run, nor any prerequisite note (e.g. that a schedule may need to be resumed/activated, or that credits are consumed per run).

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