Schedule a workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: each run executes targeted functions plus dependencies exactly once, and the response names also_runs and missing_inputs. No contradiction with 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then parameter modes, then advanced multi-function behavior, then response details. It is dense but each sentence earns its place. Slightly complex phrasing in the third sentence, but overall efficient.

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?

Given 11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and annotations that already cover safety, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It explains scheduling modes, function targeting, dependency resolution, and response hints. Minor details like tz defaults and workflow vs workflow_id selection are left to the schema, which is reasonable at 82% coverage.

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 high at 82%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the interplay between functions, inputs, and whole-workflow targeting on multi-function APIs, and by explaining the dependency execution model. It does not fully cover every parameter, but it meaningfully supplements 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 ('Schedule') and resource ('a saved workflow') with automatic recurrence, distinguishing it from writ_run_workflow (manual run) and writ_update_workflow (modify). The added multi-function targeting explanation further narrows its scope. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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?

Provides mode selection guidance ('Use every_minutes for an interval, or kind="daily"/"weekly" with time and days'), which is parameter-level usage. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives like writ_run_workflow, writ_create_automation, or writ_update_workflow. Usage is implied rather than fully contextualized.

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