vibekit_create_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key behavioral distinction (GitHub-based vs app-agent based), which is valuable. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or how the schedule is executed, leaving gaps in expected behavior for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, then adds the critical differentiator. Every word 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?

The description covers the core purpose and key differentiator but leaves out details like what happens after creation, how to manage the schedule, or any prerequisites. Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, only implying that the 'task' is a coding task. It does not clarify cron syntax or repo requirements beyond what the schema already states.

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 tool's function: creating a recurring coding task schedule. It explicitly distinguishes this from app-agent-based schedules, which differentiates it from the sibling tool vibekit_create_app_schedule. The verb 'Create' and resource 'recurring coding task schedule' are specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'GitHub-based, not app-agent based' provides clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that if the user wants a schedule running via GitHub, choose this tool; if not, use the app-agent variant. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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