aap_create_schedule

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds no extra behavioral context such as idempotency, permission requirements, or side effects. The mention of 'Returns: str: JSON with created schedule id, name, and next_run' is return value info, not behavioral disclosure, so it does not meaningfully enhance transparency beyond annotations.

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 a well-structured docstring with a clear purpose statement, parameter list, and return value. No fluff or redundant text; every sentence provides value in a compact format.

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 description covers the primary action and return type but lacks important context: it does not mention required parameters (name, unified_job_template_id, rrule) which are only in the schema, omits the 'description' parameter, and gives no guidance on recurrence rule syntax beyond the schema. Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested input), the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It lists and explains most parameters (name, unified_job_template_id, rrule, enabled, extra_vars) where the schema lacks descriptions for some (e.g., enabled). However, it omits the 'description' parameter entirely, and the explanations are brief, not fully compensating for the 0% 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 'Create a schedule for an AAP job template or workflow' - a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('schedule') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_schedule, delete_schedule, and list_schedules. No ambiguity about its function.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that update_schedule should be used for modifying existing schedules or list_schedules for viewing them. Sibling names exist but are not referenced, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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