cron_create

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 mentions that schedule accepts natural language, but it does not describe side effects, permission requirements, conflict behavior, or what happens after the job is created. This is thin for a mutating creation 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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by one useful clarification about schedule syntax. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 creation tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits what name/prompt/deliver mean, how schedule conflicts are handled, and what the response contains. The schedule-format note is helpful but not enough to make the tool safely callable without further assumptions.

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 compensate for explaining parameters. It only clarifies the schedule parameter by saying it accepts Hermes CLI-style natural language; name, prompt, and deliver remain unexplained beyond their bare titles. This is insufficient for three of the four 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: 'Create a scheduled job.' The verb 'create' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like cron_edit, cron_list, and cron_run. Even though it doesn't name siblings, the action is 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 description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cron_edit or cron_list. It only states the tool's purpose and gives a hint about schedule formatting, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names.

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