add_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: times are local, the window can wrap across midnight (21:00 to 07:00), and enforcement depends on the watcher or apply_schedules — an agent needs that to know the block may not take effect immediately.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then a compact format note and a short enforcement note. No padding, though the day-format line and enforcement line are slightly terse relative to their importance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the format and enforcement details an agent needs to call it correctly; only edge behavior (conflicts with existing schedules, permissions, what happens after end time) is left implicit.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It documents the days grammar thoroughly (daily/weekdays/weekends/mon-fri/sat,sun) and gives a concrete start/end time format, and 'group, owner or device' implies what target accepts. Only 'name' goes unexplained, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

States a specific verb (Block) and resource (schedule) with the target scope (group, owner or device) and the temporal window, so the agent knows exactly what the tool creates. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbors like pause_device or set_access, which also restrict access, so it stops short of a 5.

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 final sentence tells the agent the block is enforced by the background watcher or by apply_schedules, which is genuine operational context. However, it never states when to prefer this recurring schedule over one-off alternatives such as pause_device, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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