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

Annotations declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world, but the description adds real side-effect detail beyond them: Manual skips upcoming slots without a video and holds already-made videos for approval. This is substantive behavioral context not covered by the structured fields.

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?

Dense and information-rich; nearly every sentence carries scheduling or side-effect detail. It could be better front-loaded by stating the switch action before the mode definitions, but there is little waste.

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 mode-switch tool with no output schema, it covers both mode outcomes, prerequisites, scheduling edge cases, side effects on slots/videos, and points to get_catalog for the change explanation. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that style and videos_per_week are passed 'if they change' and explaining the mode enum semantics. It doesn't address the optional 'project' parameter, leaving one gap, but overall adds conditional meaning 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?

The title plus description make it clear this switches a project between Automatic and Manual modes, with both modes concretely defined. No sibling tool performs this action, so distinguishing is unnecessary, but the description defines outcomes rather than leading with an explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

It states Automatic's prerequisites (paid plan, scheduling window logic) and what happens on switching to Manual, plus instructs to explain changes via get_catalog modes.what_changes first. Clear context, though it doesn't explicitly frame when a user should prefer one mode over the other.

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