Create or update a schedule

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool schedules recurring server-side execution and that reusing an id updates the existing schedule, which is valuable. It does not disclose side effects of updates or any other operational details, but the core mutation behavior is visible.

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 compact and front-loaded. Each sentence contributes meaningful information: the scheduling behavior, the actor/task choice, and the upsert semantics. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, yet the description omits important operational details such as the exact update semantics, response behavior, and how settings like timezone or enabled apply. It provides a useful core but is not complete enough for an agent to confidently handle edge cases.

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 coverage is only 38%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining the mutually exclusive actor/input versus task options and the id update behavior. However, it leaves several parameters such as title, enabled, and timezone unexplained, and the description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 core purpose: 'Run an Actor or a saved task on a cron schedule, executed by the server itself.' It also clarifies the create-vs-update behavior with 'Re-using an id updates it.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings like run-actor-task or create-actor-task.

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 usage context by specifying server-side scheduled execution and the choice between 'actor' with inline 'input' or 'task'. It does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving some inference required.

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