create_agent_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (recurring schedule with optional notifications) but does not mention side effects such as immediate scheduling, cost/credit implications, or required setup beyond the schema. It is not misleading but omits deeper behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object, then adds key distinguishing details. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 tool has 20 parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description remains high-level. It does not mention required fields (e.g., name, question), how to configure specific recurrence days, or what the tool returns. The rich schema covers parameter details, but the description itself does not fully orient an agent on the tool's workflow.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking recurrence types and notification options to related parameters, but it does not go beyond what the schema already documents for individual parameters.

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 explicitly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('recurring Rolli Agent report'), and the key attributes ('cron-like cadence', 'daily, weekly, monthly, or one-time', 'optional email and Slack notifications'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_agent_schedule or start_agent_run.

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 implies the tool is used for creating recurring reports but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over related tools (e.g., start_agent_run for immediate runs, update_agent_schedule for edits). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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