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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden. It discloses one useful behavioral trait (the age window widens within a run only), but says nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved on update, whether pausing requires enabled=false, what side effects or permissions apply, or what happens to in-flight runs.

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-sentence, front-loaded structure that leads with the operation and then the caveat about discovery params. Dense but no wasted sentences; the second sentence could have been split for readability but every clause carries information.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with a nested 'params' object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only a sliver of the surface. An agent could not determine patch semantics, field interactions, or the meaning of most parameters from this text.

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 0% across 13 parameters, and the description only explains two of them (max_post_age_days and post_age_relax_steps, including ranges, defaults, and the omit semantics). Eleven parameters – label, channel, enabled, frequency, run_hour_utc, max_runs, auto_outreach, max_leads_per_run, relax_target_filter_after_runs, params, auto_import – are undocumented in both schema and description, a large gap the text does not compensate for.

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 ... an auto-scan schedule') and adds the pause/resume capability, which distinguishes it from create/delete/trigger siblings in the same family. It never names an alternative explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus create_scan_schedule, trigger_scan_schedule, or delete_scan_schedule. The pause/resume mention implies that toggling 'enabled' is the mechanism for pausing, but that is left for the agent to infer with no stated conditions or exclusions.

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