create_schedule_template

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

The description discloses that the template is unsaved and requires save_schedule to persist, which is important behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it doesn't mention side effects, edge cases, or validation behavior. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, zero fluff. Every clause adds value.

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 involves a nested settings object with 7 sub-fields and has an output schema (absent). The description covers the workflow (unsaved → save_schedule) but leaves parameter details to the schema, which is only 0% described. Overall, adequate but could benefit from noting which settings are needed.

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 0%, and the description doesn't elaborate on the parameters beyond naming 'settings'. The settings object's fields are documented only in the schema, but the description doesn't clarify which settings are required for the tool to work. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 creates a new unscheduled weekly group/private schedule template, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'unsaved' and referencing save_schedule, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_schedule or generate_weekly_schedule.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool - after required settings are known - and notes that saving is deferred to save_schedule. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow context is clear.

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