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

The description discloses that setting autosend to true will automatically send generated documents, which is an important side effect not covered by the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations. It also notes the ability to disable schedules, aligning with non-destructive but state-changing behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter usage and a key side effect. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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?

While the description covers all parameters and the main behavior, it implies frequency is always passed, yet the schema marks it non-required. It also doesn't clarify the behavior when disabling (e.g., whether frequency is ignored), leaving potential ambiguity for agents.

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 description adds meaning to parameters that lack schema descriptions, such as id (document id), enabled, autosend, and the relationship between frequency and day_of_month/weekday. However, it does not elaborate on defaults or the optional nature of frequency, which is only partially covered by 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?

The description clearly states the tool sets up, updates, or disables a recurring schedule on a document, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from likely sibling tools by mentioning documents generally rather than only invoices.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_recurring_invoice or trigger_recurring_contract. The description doesn't mention any sibling tools or selection criteria.

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