scheduled_instructions_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'schedule an instruction to run on a recurring schedule' and does not state side effects, required prior resources, permission requirements, or what happens after creation. The schedule-field details are parameter-level rather than behavioral.

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 two sentences with no filler and front-loads the core purpose. The field enumeration is dense but clear. It could be slightly better organized, but it earns its place.

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?

This is a 16-parameter create operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry significant contextual weight. It omits key information such as how to identify the instruction, target device selection, TTL semantics, enable/disable behavior, and return value. The description is enough to orient an agent but not enough to invoke the tool confidently.

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 only 31%, and the description largely repeats existing schema descriptions for scheduleFreqType and scheduleActiveStartTime without adding new meaning. It mentions scheduleFreqInterval and scheduleActiveStartDate but does not explain their semantics, and it completely omits important fields like definitionId/definitionName, devices, TTL fields, scheduleEnabled, and subday scheduling fields. This does not sufficiently compensate for the low schema 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 the operation: scheduling an instruction to run on a recurring schedule. The SQL Server Agent-style field list reinforces the scheduling purpose and adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this create tool from persistent_instructions_create or instructions_send, so it is not a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as instructions_send, persistent_instructions_create, or scheduled_instructions_update/cancel. An agent would have to infer from the tool name that this is the create path. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-condition statements.

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