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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered; the description usefully adds that the tool only stages a proposal rather than applying the edit, which softens and clarifies the destructive hint. It does not explain whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, what the returned proposal looks like, or what happens with a stale/invalid routine_id. Those are real gaps for a 13-parameter mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the crucial 'Proposes only' qualifier. The long parenthetical field list is dense but functional rather than wasteful. Minor redundancy with the schema property names is the only cost.

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 13-parameter, partially documented mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should state partial-update semantics (which fields are left untouched), the proposal lifecycle, and what the caller receives back. As written, an agent knows what fields exist but not how the call behaves.

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 only 31%, so the description carries much of the burden, yet it merely names the fields rather than explaining them. Undefined-in-schema parameters such as rotation (array of integers), weekdays numbering, and additional_information get no semantics from the description either. The prefix 'default_' on default_energy and the inheritance of estimated_minutes are left unaddressed.

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 gives a specific verb ('Propose editing') and resource ('a recurring routine'), then enumerates the editable surface (title, notes, frequency, weekdays, dates, rotation, active). That is enough to distinguish it from create_routine and update_task, although no sibling is named. The purpose is clear with mild redundancy from the parenthetical field list.

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 no explicit when-to-use statement: nothing says when to edit an existing routine versus creating a new one or using complete_routine_today/skip_routine_today for one-off changes. The phrase 'Proposes only' implies a two-step flow but never explains it or points at confirm_change/discard_change. An agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.

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