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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them by explaining desired-state idempotent retries, reread-and-verified applied changes, and the non-mutating preview mode. It also enumerates unsupported rewrite classes, which is behavioral context the annotations do not carry. Permission/auth requirements remain unstated.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the preview/apply switch, then guarantees and exclusions. The unsupported-rewrites list is long but earns its place by preventing misuse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the mutation semantics, idempotency, verification, and unsupported operations. Remaining gaps are minor: revision-mismatch behavior and any authorization prerequisites are unspecified.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two most consequential parameters: apply (default false = non-mutating preview) and the revision constraint implied by 'using its exact current revision' for expectedRevision. The id and kind parameters are not elaborated, but the tool's framing (Note or Article) partially covers kind.

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+resource+scope: preview or amend time/timezone of a scheduled Note or Article using the current revision. It implicitly distinguishes itself from amend_scheduled_note_content by declaring content rewrites unsupported, but does not address the close sibling reschedule_scheduled_item, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 flag-level guidance (apply=false for preview, apply=true after client-side confirmation), which is genuinely useful. However it names no alternative tool and offers no condition for choosing this over reschedule_scheduled_item, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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