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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'The next run time is recomputed by the server when timing changes.' This is a non-obvious server-side side effect. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the changeable aspects, a relevant side-effect, and usage guidance. The final usage sentence is slightly redundant with the opening, but every sentence earns its place.

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 11 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations providing safety/idempotency signals, the description covers the key operational points: what can change, when to use it, and how timing changes affect scheduling. It could mention explicit alternatives, but nothing essential for invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description groups parameters into categories like 'frequency/timing' and 'media,' which provides a high-level overview but adds little semantic detail beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Update an existing recurring schedule' and enumerates the modifiable aspects (name, content template, frequency/timing, timezone, media, active status). It is distinct from create/delete/list siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

The description gives explicit usage direction: 'Use this when the user wants to change a recurring schedule.' It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name create_schedule/delete_schedule as alternatives, but the context is clear.

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