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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it rewrites the live schedule, discards the scenario as a side effect, touches nothing until applied, and requires Administrator/ProjectManager. The permission requirement and irreversible-data-loss framing are not recoverable from annotations alone.

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 effect and the discard side effect, then the confirmation precondition, then the domain explainer. Every sentence carries information, though the sentence about comparison answers is slightly indirect in its wording ('each answer compares...') and could be tightened.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the blast radius (all differing tasks and dates), the side effect (scenario discarded), the permission gate, and the preconditions. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it is missing.

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 the single parameter is self-documenting, so the baseline is already high. The description adds real meaning by explaining what a scenario *is* (a private copy of one project's dates), which helps the agent supply the correct id rather than guessing between project and scenario ids.

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 effect: 'Make the plan match the scenario — every differing task takes the scenario's dates — then discard the scenario.' It also defines the domain object ('a scenario is a private copy of one project's dates'), so an agent can distinguish apply_scenario from create_scenario, get_scenario, or delete_scenario 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 gating condition: 'only call it once the user has seen the comparison and said to apply it,' which is exactly the confirmation an agent needs before a destructive write. It does not explicitly name the alternative path (delete_scenario to discard without applying), so it falls short of full when-not/alternatives coverage.

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