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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-read-only), the description discloses genuinely non-obvious behavior: an ineligible site 'keeps the request and switches on when it becomes eligible,' autoSend means batches go out 'SENT WITHOUT REVIEW,' DR bounds change draft volume, and a siteTopic filter skips whole sites even when one article matches. That is exactly the consequences layer the annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the field explanations are dense but each earns its place, with the highest-risk field (autoSend) flagged explicitly. The frequency enum recitation is redundant with the schema, and the field order mixes schedule, automation, eligibility, and targeting without grouping.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers every parameter's effect, warns on the one destructive setting, explains the deferred-application case, and instructs partial updates. The only unanswered question — how soon a frequency change affects already-scheduled runs — is minor.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a step above by adding consequence-level meaning — smaller sites accept more often so a high minDr means fewer drafts, -1/0 clear the setting, and a concrete siteTopic example. It loses a little value by restating the frequency enum and the 0-23 hour range that the schema already carries.

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 opening sentence gives a clear verb+resource: change the run schedule and automation settings for a site, and the body enumerates exactly which knobs (frequency, preferredHour, autoFollowup, autoSend, minDr/maxDr, siteTopic). It stops short of positioning itself against the nearby siblings (set_warmup, set_profile, set_sending, trigger_run) — the only sibling named, get_campaign, is cited for a suggestion, not for routing.

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?

There is strong per-field operational guidance: 'confirm with the person before turning it on' for autoSend, 'Turning it off is always allowed,' and 'Pass only the fields to change.' What's missing is tool-level routing — it never states when to prefer this tool over set_warmup or trigger_run, so the agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names.

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