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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: history is preserved, validation mirrors creation, pausing cancels waiting runs, and resuming schedules from the next time after now. That is concrete state-impact information an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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?

A single, dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and parentheticals carrying the mode semantics. Efficient, though the nested parentheses make it slightly harder to scan than a trimmed clause structure would be.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the important behavioral edges (history retention, cancellation of waiting runs, resume timing). The identity params are left to the schema, which is acceptable given their 100% coverage.

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 schema already documents every parameter; baseline 3 applies. The description names the mutable fields (repeat, time_zone, target, payload, alert inbox, name) as a group, which adds light context but no syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States specific verbs (change/pause/resume) against a specific resource (a repeating wake-up) and enumerates the fields that can be changed. It is distinguishable from schedule_create/delete/list/run by naming exactly what it modifies, though it never references those siblings by name.

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?

Implied usage is clear: edit, pause, or resume an existing wake-up. But it gives no explicit routing against siblings (schedule_create for new ones, schedule_delete for removal) and no stated prerequisites for when each mode applies beyond the enum semantics baked into "paused"/"active".

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