Create an agent schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond them: the schedule triggers autonomous agent execution, results/questions can be routed to Telegram, and a channel link must exist first. It does not discuss failure modes or what happens if the link is missing, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is solid.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core creation action is front-loaded, followed by the scheduling mechanic and the Telegram prerequisite in priority order.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the prerequisite routing and scheduling semantics, the description is nearly complete, though it never addresses threadId, which is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by emphasizing the intervalMinutes OR cronExpr mutual exclusivity and the purpose of the prompt template as the recurring payload. It does not explain the otherwise-undocumented threadId parameter, leaving one semantic 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a recurring or one-off autonomous Super Agent trigger') and immediately explains the core mechanic: the agent runs the prompt template on the schedule via intervalMinutes OR cronExpr. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_agent_schedules and pause_agent_schedule.

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?

Explicitly covers the Telegram delivery path and its prerequisite ('link it first with create_channel_link_token'), naming the sibling tool to call before this one. It does not spell out when to choose recurring vs one-off or cron vs interval beyond the schema's OR constraint, so minor guidance is left implicit.

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