run_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'starts' a schedule but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, whether an already-running schedule is replaced, or what the result of invocation is. This is a significant gap for an action tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, it is slightly under-specified relative to the number of parameters.

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 two-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent does not know the effect on the device, whether the operation has side effects, or what success or failure looks like.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It clarifies that 'schedule' accepts an id or name, but it entirely omits any explanation of the optional 'device' parameter, including its purpose or accepted values.

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 states a specific action ('Start') and resource ('stored schedule rule'), and clarifies the selector ('by its id or name'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as start_zone, start_zones, and list_schedules.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The phrasing implies the tool is for executing an existing schedule rule, but it does not state when to prefer this over start_zone or start_zones, nor any prerequisites.

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