set_bank_sync_schedule

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

Annotations already declare idempotency and destructiveness, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: retry semantics (hourly, max three attempts), catch-up behavior when TILL was closed, the fact that no automation rule fetches statements, the clearing of an older rule pointer, and that the fetch runs in the name of whoever set it. Nothing contradicts the 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 front-loads the core action and proceeds logically through scheduler behavior, exclusions, and consequences. It is dense and long, but most sentences carry useful information; the trailing CONSEQUENCE summary adds clarity rather than repetition.

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?

For a six-parameter banking mutation with no output schema and only partial annotation coverage, the description is quite complete: it covers retry behavior, permissions, ruleId refusal, and the effect of disabling the schedule. The main gap is the lack of explanation for the required identifier parameters.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains mode ('daily'/'off'), atTime (Swiss local HH:MM, default 07:00), and ruleId behavior well, but leaves workspaceId, connectionId, and idempotencyKey undocumented, including the three required parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: setting the daily automatic statement fetch of an EBICS connection, with mode 'daily' or 'off'. This clearly separates it from an immediate manual sync, though it never names a sibling tool like bank_sync for explicit contrast.

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?

It gives clear usage context: mode 'daily' or 'off', the default 07:00 time, the fact that till serve has no scheduler, and that passing a ruleId is refused with sync_schedule_parked. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X' but the exclusions and consequences make the intended use clear.

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