schedule_create

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: generating platform-specific run scripts, registering with OS schedulers, and parameter formatting rules. It does not detail error conditions or side effects like overwriting, but covers the core behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args section. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but remains effective.

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?

All 5 parameters are described with usage details. There is no output schema, so the description is adequate. It could mention success/failure behavior, but given the parameter count and complexity, it covers the necessary information.

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 0%, so the description fully bears the burden. It explains each parameter's purpose, constraints (e.g., 'weekday names for WEEKLY', 'HH:MM 24-hour format'), and required conditions (days mandatory when schedule=WEEKLY). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Create or update a scheduled task for an exported SCOUT workflow.' It also describes the specific actions (generating a run script, registering with OS scheduler). This distinguishes it from siblings like schedule_delete and schedule_list.

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 parameter constraints (e.g., days required for WEEKLY, time format) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or comparative usage context is given.

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