create_schedule

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

The description states that the tool 'Persists to the Rachio backend', disclosing its write behavior. Annotations confirm readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which are consistent. The description adds value by noting the persistence effect, but could further describe side effects or post-conditions.

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 well-structured with a brief intro, a key usage paragraph, and a bulleted parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and critical recommendation. Minor redundancy ('Every argument has the same meaning as in preview_schedule' appears twice) slightly reduces conciseness.

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 complexity (19 parameters, 1 recommended sibling), the description provides parameter details, usage guidance, and behavioral context. The presence of an output schema relieves the need for return value documentation. Minor gaps: no mention of error conditions or authentication requirements, but still fairly complete for an agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates thoroughly by listing all 19 parameters in a clear Args block with meanings, types, and defaults. It even references preview_schedule for nested structures (zones). This provides complete semantic coverage beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Create a new schedule' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like preview_schedule, update_schedule, delete_schedule, etc., as it explicitly mentions creation and persistence.

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 strongly recommends calling preview_schedule with the same arguments before creating, providing clear usage context. It also indicates that field details are covered in preview_schedule's docstring. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when updating or deleting is more appropriate).

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