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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that updates can synchronize copies already imported by invited guests and queue notifications, and that delivered notifications cannot be recalled. This adds useful operational consequence information. It does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The trigger condition is front-loaded, followed by the exclusion, then the behavioral consequence. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection and invocation.

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 12-parameter mutation tool, the description covers when to use it, when not to use it, and post-update effects. Parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema, and an output schema exists, so the definition is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by mapping natural-language edit intents to parameter groups: reschedule to startAt/endAt, move to location, link tasks to agreementIds, and participants to participantUserIds.

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 verb ('edit') and a specific resource ('an existing Familia plan'), and enumerates concrete operations: rename, reschedule, move, update location, link tasks, change participants. It also explicitly contrasts with creating a new plan, which distinguishes it from the sibling familia_create_plan.

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 clearly says when to use the tool ('when the user asks to rename, reschedule, move...') and gives a when-not ('Do not use to create a new plan'). It does not explicitly name the alternative tool to use for creation, but the exclusion is specific enough to guide an agent.

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