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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: partial-update behavior ("Fields left out keep their saved values"), that existing scheduled notes are unaffected, an authorization requirement (owner-only, personal or team workspace owner), and the return payload. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what gets saved, then partial-update semantics, immutability, permissions, and return value. No filler; every sentence 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?

With 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps (partial update, permission model, side-effect scope). Nothing needed to call it correctly 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%, so each parameter is already fully documented (including examples, bounds, and the enum meaning). The description lists the same fields but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Save the writer's Note posting cadence for future notes") and enumerates the settings it governs (times, posts per day, days, weekend skipping, mode, timezone). The write semantics clearly distinguish it from the read counterpart get_posting_schedule without needing to name it.

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 clear scope ("for future notes") and an explicit boundary ("Notes already scheduled are not moved"), which tells the agent when this tool does NOT apply. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (get_posting_schedule, reschedule_scheduled_item) for adjacent tasks, so routing isn't fully specified.

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