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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: caller token and scopes apply, no passkey approval, no immediate posting, scheduling requires drafts scope, and the token workspace is the default. That is exactly the extra context (auth model, capability limits, defaults) an agent needs before invoking a destructive action.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler and the destructive/read-only constraint up front. The semicolon-chained clause about token scopes, passkey, posting, and scheduling is dense but each fragment carries distinct information.

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 destructive, open-world=false tool with a nested free-form arguments object and no output schema, the description covers auth, capability limits, defaults, and how arguments are validated. Only the response shape and error behavior are left unstated, which is a minor gap since no output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden: it clarifies that operation_id identifies the operation and that arguments must match that operation's full input schema, which is far more than the bare 'object with additionalProperties: true' in the schema. The workspace-default sentence adds useful context, though 'workspace' is not a top-level parameter, leaving a minor ambiguity about where it is supplied.

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 ('Executes a write API operation ... identified by operation_id') and immediately delimits it from the read path by declaring it 'Rejects read-only operations', which cleanly separates it from callReadOperation. An agent can classify the tool without opening the 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 clear selection rule: this tool is for write operations, read-only operations are rejected (so callReadOperation is the alternative). It also states what is not possible here (passkey approval, immediate posting), which shapes when a caller should not use it. It stops short of naming sibling tools or describing retry/fallback paths.

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