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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only conveys that a visit is scheduled, without mentioning that this mutates Jobber data, any conflict/idempotency concerns, or required permissions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with little waste. 'Jobber calendar schedule' is slightly redundant, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 mutating tool with 9 parameters)Skip no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not explain how startDate/startTime relate to startAt/endAt, which parameters are needed for a valid visit, or what the tool returns.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the job must exist, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('schedule'), a resource ('appointment visit'), and a scope ('for an existing Job'). It is clear and semantically distinct from the sibling cancel/reschedule tools, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus jobber_reschedule_visit or jobber_cancel_visit. The phrase 'existing Job' implies a prerequisite, but there is no mention of exclusions, scheduling conflicts, or alternative tools.

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