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 usefully adds the required OAuth-style scope (work_order_schedules:write) and the immutability constraint on work_order_id, which are not in the structured fields. It stops short of explaining what 'destructive' means for a schedule update.

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 clauses: the action and ID, the mutable fields, the immutability constraint, and the scope requirement. Front-loaded with the core operation and free of filler.

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 no output schema and nine fully schema-documented parameters, the description supplies the key constraints an agent needs: target by ID, which fields are updatable, that work_order_id cannot change, and the required write scope. It could say more about the destructive nature of the update, but coverage is solid.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters in detail; the description only echoes a handful (date, times, stop_order, notes). It also references work_order_id as immutable even though no such parameter exists in the schema, adding slight noise rather than semantics.

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 ('Update a work order schedule entry') and specifies the operation is by ID, which is enough to distinguish it from create/delete/get/list siblings. It does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 'by ID' framing and the scope requirement imply this is the tool for modifying an existing schedule entry, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer bulk_update or create_work_order_schedule instead. Usage is only implied.

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