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

With annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description still adds non-obvious behavior: autoSend sends batches without review and requires human confirmation, and ineligible sites queue the request until warmup completes. It does not explain reversibility of a schedule change or how queued requests appear afterwards.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause, then handles parameter semantics, the autoSend danger, and the eligibility edge case in tight sentences with no filler. The opening sentence is slightly redundant but everything else 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?

For a partial-update mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the remaining gaps: which fields change, the destructive autoSend effect, the human-confirmation requirement, and deferred application for ineligible sites.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: preferredHour of -1 explicitly 'clears' the setting, frequency is tied to 'discovery and drafting' runs, and autoFollowup targets 'sites that went quiet.' These are semantic clarifications, not just restatements of the enum.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Change the run schedule and automation,' which frames exactly the fields in the schema (frequency, preferredHour, autoFollowup, autoSend). It is distinguishable from siblings like set_sending or trigger_run, though it never names those alternatives to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Gives real usage rules: 'Pass only the fields to change' (partial-update semantics), 'confirm with the person before turning it on' for autoSend, and 'Turning it off is always allowed.' It lacks an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling statement, so it falls short of a 5.

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