openclaw_cron_add_every

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a cron job and computes the interval, but does not mention side effects (e.g., duplicate handling), required authentication, rate limits, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no fluff. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 has 11 parameters, no output schema, and is a mutation, the description is somewhat incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, failure modes, or integration with the broader cron system. The high schema coverage partially compensates, but more context would be beneficial.

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 high (91%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that either intervalMinutes or intervalHours should be passed and that the tool computes everyMs. However, it does not add meaning for required parameters like name and message beyond what the schema provides.

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 cron job that fires every N minutes/hours regardless of clock time, distinguishing it from wall-clock aligned cron tools. It specifies the verb 'Create', the resource 'cron job', and the scheduling pattern 'every'-kind, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance: 'Pass either intervalMinutes or intervalHours' and 'Use for monitoring jobs that don't care about wall-clock alignment.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like openclaw_cron_add_daily or when not to use it.

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