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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds one piece of real domain behavior beyond them: members waiting on the step will wait the new time, which is a meaningful side effect for a scheduling change. It says nothing about permissions, what happens on invalid step ids, or whether partial updates are possible.

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?

It is short with no filler, but the telegraphic fragment style ("...or its place: move up or down one place") makes it harder to parse than plain sentences would. The site constraint is front-loaded reasonably, but overall the brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: whether move and wait fields are mutually exclusive or combinable, what the step integer refers to beyond a pointer to get_automation, and what happens to the step's existing configuration. It is not sufficient on its own for an agent to call this confidently.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents site, automation, wait_unit, and wait_amount defaults. The description only restates the site scoping and the up/down-one-place semantics of move, adding little beyond the enum itself; the integer step parameter is clarified only indirectly via get_automation.

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 conveys that a step's wait time or its ordering can be changed, and points to get_automation for step ids, so the resource is identifiable. But it never states a verb plainly ("A step's wait after the step before, or its place") and is written in fragments, leaving the agent to infer that this is an update operation.

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?

It gives one genuinely useful usage pointer: use get_automation to obtain step ids. It does not say when to use this versus remove_automation_step, nor whether move and wait changes can be combined, nor any preconditions.

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