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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only restates the operation. It omits permission requirements, reversibility, partial-update semantics, and the immediate effects of changing enabled or frequency fields for a 13-param mutation 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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, given the tool's complexity, its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

Given 13 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to use the tool correctly. It omits parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, and expected outcomes.

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% for 13 parameters, including a nested 'params' object, and the description names none of them. No semantics for required IDs, enabled flag, frequency, or other controls are provided.

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, pause/resume) and resource (auto-scan schedule), letting an agent distinguish it from create/delete/list siblings. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The phrase 'Update or pause/resume' implies modifying an existing schedule but gives no guidance on when to choose it over trigger_scan_schedule or create_scan_schedule.

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