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

The description discloses that operations run one-by-one without a backend transaction, and that notifications/reminders may queue and cannot be recalled. This goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) and informs the agent of partial-failure and side-effect behavior.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: usage conditions, alternative guidance, and behavioral caveats. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and stays efficient despite covering multiple scenarios.

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 complex tool with multiple operation types and nested schemas, the description covers when to use it, when to prefer alternatives, how it executes (non-transactional), and side effects (notifications). The presence of an output schema means return format need not be described. Nothing essential 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 75%, and the schema already documents key parameters like repeatRule, idempotencyKey, and recurrenceEndDate. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific purpose: batch create or modify multiple Familia tasks, list tasks, plans, or attachments in one request. It clearly differentiates from single-operation siblings by emphasizing the batch aspect and lists the resource types covered.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (multiple operations or multiple standalone dated actions) and when-not-to-use guidance, naming alternatives: prefer repeatRule for repeats and one create_plan with relatedTasks for a main event with related actions. This is exemplary.

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