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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden for a mutating create operation. It does not state required permissions, side effects, default values, what happens when a schedule already exists, or what the two outreach modes actually change. The parenthetical adds a small behavioral hint but is far from sufficient for a 14-parameter creation tool.

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. It is efficient, though the parenthetical is slightly opaque and the overall size is arguably too small for the complexity of the tool.

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 create tool with 14 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain required fields, scheduling behavior, mode selection, or any operational constraints, leaving the agent with almost no context beyond the tool's name.

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 0% across 14 parameters, including a nested object, so the description would need to compensate heavily. It only loosely hints at the auto_import/auto_outreach distinction via 'Import Only or Message now outreach', without naming parameters, accepted values, required fields, or formats. Most parameter meaning remains undisclosed.

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 ('Create') and resource ('auto-scan schedule'), and the parenthetical names two schedule modes ('Import Only' vs 'Message now outreach'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_scan_schedule, trigger_scan_schedule, and delete_scan_schedule. It is not a tautology, but the parenthetical is cryptic rather than fully explanatory.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over update_scan_schedule, trigger_scan_schedule, or run_scan. The two modes are mentioned but not framed as usage conditions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name alone.

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