openclaw_cron_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions wrapping cron.add and clarifies field formats, but omits critical details like error handling, idempotency, side effects, or required permissions.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently uses sentences to clarify field formats and give an example. It is moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 complex nested input schema and no output schema, the description covers the main creation aspects and field details but lacks guidance on usage context, failure modes, or relationship to sibling tools. It is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 50%, and the description adds value by explaining correct field names (e.g., expr/tz instead of incorrect placeholders) and providing a concrete example. However, it does not cover all parameters (e.g., delivery, deleteAfterRun) and only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 OpenClaw cron job', specifying the action (create) and resource (cron job). It distinguishes itself from sibling convenience wrappers like openclaw_cron_add_weekly by being the general-purpose version, but does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., openclaw_cron_add_weekly, openclaw_cron_add_every). The description focuses solely on technical field details and does not provide context for optimal selection.

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