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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does notable work: it discloses the execution model (POSTs to webhook vs. runs a skill each tick), the cron cadence, the absence of a per-plan routine cap, and the billing implication (prepaid credits, or free on your own Bedrock key). It does not cover required permissions or what the creation returns, which are the remaining gaps.

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 core action before details, and the trigger/skill, cron, cap, and billing clauses each add distinct information. It is dense as a single paragraph, but no sentence is filler.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral context (execution target, cadence, cost, param relationship). What an agent still lacks is permission requirements and the post-creation result, leaving a modest gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter including cron format. The description adds real value beyond it by stating the mutual exclusivity of `trigger_url` and `skill_id`, a constraint not expressed in the schema itself.

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 and resource ('Create a routine that re-runs on a cron schedule against a report'), and goes further to define what a routine is (cron-triggered, report-maintaining) rather than merely restating the name. An agent can distinguish it from create_report, create_skill, or create_connector without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete operational rule: provide either `trigger_url` or `skill_id`, with the consequence of each spelled out. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to use update_routine instead), but the context is clear enough to invoke correctly.

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