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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it explains that create returns `{ id }`, that update patches an existing wakeup, that `store` is ignored on update, and how the wakeup interoperates with a Claude routine firing `get_wakeup(id)`. It stops short of stating permission requirements, reversibility, or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the create/update mode split and bolded mode labels make it scannable. It is somewhat long and the closing sentences about the two systems overlap with the update-mode explanation, but every sentence carries useful routing or behavioral 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 an 8-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers mode selection, required-on-create fields, return shape (`{ id }`), and the routine linkage workflow. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge cases like error handling or required upstream state are unaddressed.

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 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning on top: it clarifies that the presence/absence of `id` selects create vs. update mode and explains the `routineId` linkage workflow that the schema only hints at.

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+resource ('Create or update a scheduled wakeup') and immediately splits the two modes so an agent can distinguish create vs. update behavior. It also implicitly distinguishes the tool from read siblings like get_wakeup/get_wakeups by framing it as the scheduling/mutation action.

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?

Explicitly names when to call it ('when the merchant asks to check back later, OR proactively before a retail event or trend worth monitoring') and when to use update mode ('to link a Claude routine ID after creating it'), even giving a concrete example call.

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