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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes beyond them by naming the ACTIVE_SCHEDULES_EXIST failure, exposing the 3-minute/28-day window, the fixed-duration requirement, the gap rule, and the Facebook-only 8-hour stop. It stops short of describing the return payload or scheduling limits beyond a single set.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then four numbered rules that each carry non-obvious operational content. Slightly long for a 2-parameter tool and rules 2 and 4 partly restate the schema's dates description, but no sentence is 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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description closes the important gaps: prerequisites, error code, timing windows, and duration coupling. An agent has everything needed to invoke it without first discovering failures by trial.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra by explaining *why* the multi-date constraint exists (the platform cannot detect overlap with a manual duration) and by cross-linking duration setup to livereacting_update_project – reasoning absent from the schema itself.

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 ('Schedule') and resource ('a project to go live') with scope ('one or more future times'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the start-now path via 'Nothing starts now,' which separates it from livereacting_start_stream.

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 explicit when/when-not plus named alternatives: it warns that a project with existing schedules must call livereacting_cancel_schedules first, and that a manual-duration project must use livereacting_update_project or schedule one date at a time. This routes the agent to the correct sibling before it makes a failing call.

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