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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the required work_order_schedules:write scope and the fact that work_order_id is immutable, which the agent cannot learn from the schema.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with verb+resource, with the constraint and scope appended. No filler or repetition of structured data beyond a brief field summary.

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 mutation tool with full annotations and 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this covers the essentials: identity, mutable fields, the immutability constraint, and the auth scope. It stops just short of stating what the operation returns or any side effects on dependent schedules.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all nine parameters with formats. The description's parenthetical list (date, times, stop_order, notes) only partially mirrors the schema and omits technician_id, duration_minutes, and travel_time_minutes, so it adds little semantic detail.

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 (Update) and resource (work order schedule entry), plus the identifier used (by ID) and the fields it touches. It clearly differentiates from create_/delete_/get_ siblings by its verb, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers this edits an existing schedule rather than creating or deleting one. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like bulk_update, and no prerequisites beyond the scope requirement.

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