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

Beyond annotations (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), it explains that occurrences are ordinary tasks shifted by rhythm, that changing rhythm restarts the series count, and that the task must be dated and non-summary. These are substantive behavioral details not present in annotations.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, constraints, and permissions. Every sentence contributes information; there is no repetition of schema text beyond the helpful rhythm example.

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?

The definition covers prerequisites, permission requirements, and recurrence behavior for a mutation tool whose annotations already establish safety. It omits return/response expectations and does not clarify what happens to already-existing future occurrences when the rhythm changes, which is a minor completeness gap.

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 taskId, frequency, interval, and endsOn are already documented. The description adds a useful interval/frequency example ('weekly, interval 2 = every two weeks') but leaves most parameter semantics to the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific action (make/change task recurrence) and resource, and the first sentence immediately distinguishes setting recurrence from general task updates. It stops short of naming the sibling stop_task_recurrence, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It gives clear preconditions (task must be dated, not a summary task) and the required role (Administrator or ProjectManager). It does not explicitly state when to use stop_task_recurrence or list_recurring_tasks instead, so there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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