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

Annotations already disclose that this is not read-only, is open-world, and is not destructive. The description adds the meaningful behavior that the plan becomes active on a future date, but it does not say what happens to any currently active or already scheduled diet plan.

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?

One tightly written sentence with no wasted words, and the key outcome is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter scheduling tool.

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 scheduling mutation, the description should clarify whether this replaces the current active diet or merely queues a future phase, and how it differs from activate_diet_plan. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the lifecycle behavior remains underspecified.

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 planId and starts_on are already well documented, including that planId comes from list_diet_plans and starts_on must be after today. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource (schedules a diet plan) plus the concrete outcome: it becomes the student's active diet on a future date. This separates it from activate_diet_plan implicitly, but it does not name or explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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?

The future-date framing implies when to use it rather than activate_diet_plan, but the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and names no alternatives. The agent must infer the scheduling versus immediate-activation distinction.

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