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

Annotations only declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation; the description adds the semantics that matter, namely that off halts runs and emails immediately while letting an in-flight run finish, and that on restarts the timetable from now without backfilling missed runs. Those consequences are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Every sentence carries a distinct piece of operational information 3 the action, the effect of off, the effect of on, the ownership restriction, and the routing alternative. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no 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 two-parameter toggle with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: which schedules it applies to, what state change means, side effects on in-flight runs, and where to go for triggers.

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% and both parameters are described there (enabled as false/true, scheduleId as coming from fastero_list_schedules). The description restates the off/on meaning but adds no format, id syntax, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (switch a schedule on/off) and enumerates the concrete object types it governs: dashboard email, alert, notebook run, repeated agent run. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the trigger tools, so an agent can separate it from fastero_disable_trigger/fastero_enable_trigger without opening a 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 both positive and negative conditions: it works only on your own schedules, a colleague's schedule cannot be switched, and Python schedules or a dashboard's automatic refresh must go through fastero_disable_trigger instead. It also points at fastero_list_schedules as the source of the id.

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