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

Beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description discloses the date-fallback order, the duplicate-intent guard with `force: true` override, posts-per-week accounting, Pro+ gating, autopilot review exceptions, and the exact `blocked` reasons ('not-managed', 'refresh-not-ready') with the guarantee that nothing is added in those cases.

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 main behavior is front-loaded and every sentence carries a rule an agent needs. It is dense and the refresh paragraph runs long, so a reader has to parse carefully, but given the branching logic there is little wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the return-shape burden and discharges it: it describes the `refresh` variant with `updateId`/`briefReady`, the `already: true` no-op, and the `blocked` strings. For a tool this branch-heavy, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `force` is framed as the duplicate-guard override, `scheduledDate` as the middle rung of the date-fallback ladder, and `suggestionId` as an id drawn from get_plan suggestions. This adds real semantics beyond the bare schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Turn one of the plan's suggestions ... into a real scheduled entry.' It names the source (get_plan `suggestions`) and is immediately distinguishable from the sibling dismiss_plan_suggestion and from add_to_plan/approve_update.

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 says where suggestions come from (get_plan `suggestions`), what happens per branch, and routes to the correct follow-up tools: approve_update, list_update_opportunities, get_refresh_brief, mark_refresh_done. It even distinguishes the refresh case from the ordinary accept case.

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