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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Patch' implies mutation and the parenthetical discloses partial-update behavior, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects, reversibility, required identifiers, or what happens to omitted fields.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the parenthetical adds the most important usage nuance. It is arguably too terse for a 13-parameter mutation, but it is not structurally bloated.

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 with no annotations, no output schema, and only 15% schema description coverage, one sentence is not enough. It establishes patch semantics but leaves field meanings, required ID roles, side effects, and response behavior unexplained.

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?

There are 13 parameters with only 15% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain the undocumented fields such as cta, day, caption, hashtags, scheduled_at, linked_asset_id, target_platform, or target_account_id. The note about passing only intended changes is directionally useful but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Patch', and names the resource, 'one calendar row', so the basic operation is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as create_calendar_row, delete_calendar_row, or schedule_calendar_row, which prevents a top score.

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 parenthetical 'only pass fields you intend to change' is useful guidance for partial updates, but it does not explain when to use this tool instead of create_calendar_row, schedule_calendar_row, or delete_calendar_row. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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