Create website cron job

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful context by saying the response includes the cron job's uuid, which is required for deletion. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and inputs, while the second supplies the most important output detail, the uuid, in a focused way.

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 simple three-parameter creation tool, the description plus fully documented schema covers everything needed to invoke it correctly. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of the returned uuid is valuable and sufficient for the likely next step, deletion.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with their meanings and constraints. The description only summarizes 'schedule expression' and 'command' without adding new semantic information, so the schema carries the load.

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 action: it creates a cron job for an Agency Plan website from a schedule expression and a command. The 'Agency Plan website' scope and the distinction from account-level cron jobs are clear, so an agent can tell it apart from similar sibling tools such as hosting_createAccountCronJobV1.

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 clearly scopes the tool to Agency Plan websites, which implies when it should be used instead of account-level cron tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for correct routing.

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