Create account cron job

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation is expected. The description adds useful context that the created cron job is returned with its uid, and that this uid is needed for deletion and fetching output. It does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes, but with the annotation coverage this is acceptable.

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 fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the return-value note is concise and directly relevant. Every sentence 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value and highlights the uid's downstream necessity. Inputs are fully covered by the schema, and the account-level scope is clear. It is complete enough for a simple create operation, though it could have included an explicit pointer to list/delete siblings for fuller context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it simply restates that a schedule expression and command are used. The username parameter is thinly described in the schema as 'username parameter' and the description does not compensate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a cron job for the specified account from a schedule expression and a command.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hosting_listAccountCronJobsV1, hosting_deleteAccountCronJobV1, and hosting_getCronJobOutputV1. It also specifies the key input types and the primary output.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a new account-level cron job needs to be created. It also states that the returned uid is required to delete the cron job or fetch its output, indirectly linking to sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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