User Schedule

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the call is read-like despite being a POST and does not publish to social platforms, and it may burn paid credits requiring confirm=true. This resolves the main behavioral ambiguity an agent would have from the annotations alone, though it omits rate-limit or failure behavior.

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, front-loaded with what is fetched and what is returned. The credits/confirm warning is appropriately short, though the trailing 'do not publish to social platforms' clause reads as defensive boilerplate that could be folded more tightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return fields, and it covers the credit and confirm requirements. The main gap is the misleading cursor/trim mention, which leaves an agent unsure how pagination is actually driven.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description actively muddies parameter semantics: it advertises pagination via cursor and a trim option, yet neither parameter exists in the input schema (only handle, account, confirm). The one useful addition, confirm=true, merely restates the schema description. The phantom-parameter reference makes the description less reliable than the 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?

States a specific verb (fetches) plus resource (a user's schedule by handle) and enumerates the returned fields (start time, end time, title, description, thumbnail URL), which no sibling like twitch_profile or twitch_user_videos provides. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it isn't a fully exemplary 5, but the resource is clearly distinct from everything else in the Twitch group.

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 flags operational conditions — paid credits and confirm=true — but never says when to prefer this tool over twitch_profile, twitch_user_videos, or twitch_clip. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explained.

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