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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false) by disclosing runtime behavior: only open screens re-run their charts, public links re-take numbers on open, scheduled emails run their own queries regardless, and unusable values are refused with a reason. It also states the authorization tier required to perform the write.

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 core action and its two modes are front-loaded, and each clause carries distinct information (scope, alternatives, constraints, return value, permissions). It is a single dense block, though; the return-value and permission clauses could be broken out for easier scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by specifying the return shape ({ triggerId, mode, minutes } or null when off) and framing it relative to fastero_get_dashboard. Combined with permissions and the mutation's effect on open screens, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and both enums are documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns more by supplying cross-parameter constraints absent from the schema: 'change' requires a chart querying Postgres or BigQuery, and a warehouse that bills per query forces a 5-minute floor on the timer.

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+resource: 'Set how a dashboard refreshes its charts for everyone who has it open', and immediately enumerates the two supported modes (minutes or 'change'). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (fastero_set_page_refresh for hosted pages), so the agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

Names concrete alternatives and the conditions that select them: fastero_set_page_refresh for a hosted page, fastero_disable_trigger to pause while keeping the setting, and fastero_schedule_dashboard_email as an independent path. It also states prerequisites (Postgres/BigQuery chart for 'change', owners/admins/editors only), leaving little to inference.

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