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

The annotations already declare this is non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the approval-preference branch and by scoping out vendor notifications, dispatch, completion, and safety sign-off. It does not describe the exact artifact produced or return behavior.

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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the usage condition, then gives the approval branch, then states exclusions.

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 description covers the high-level purpose and usage conditions well enough for an agent to understand the tool's role. However, for an 11-parameter mutation with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, it leaves significant gaps around parameter meaning and the result of creating a plan or proposal.

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 description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it does not. It only implicitly references the asset, scheduling, and an approval preference, while leaving idempotencyKey, recurrence fields, assignedTo, rationale, title, description, and date semantics unexplained.

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 verb and resource: scheduling authorized internal preventive maintenance for an asset. It also sets boundaries by excluding vendor notifications, dispatch, completion, and safety sign-off. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as draft_work_order, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives a clear trigger: use this when scheduling authorized internal preventive maintenance for an asset. It also explains the approval-dependent behavior: create immediately if approval preference is off, otherwise prepare a proposal for review. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead.

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