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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: the required write scope (work_order_schedules:write). It does not cover conflict/duplicate handling, but the auth requirement is meaningful added context.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the key parameter nuance and the scope requirement. No 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 9-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, an output schema absent, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies purpose, the critical stop_order semantics, and the auth scope. It is largely complete; only edge-case behavior (e.g., duplicate scheduling) is unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for stop_order by explaining that leaving it unset produces an unordered calendar entry, which is not stated in the schema's '1-based stop position' text.

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+resource: scheduling a work order for a technician on a date, and clarifies it is 'one entry of a day plan'. This helps distinguish it from create_work_order (which creates the order itself) and create_pm_schedule. However, no sibling is named explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Provides conditional guidance for one parameter ('leave it unset for an unordered calendar entry'), which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance across the many create_* siblings, so usage must be largely inferred.

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