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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, destructive and idempotent, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: partial-update semantics ('only the keys you send in fields change'), reset-to-default via null, and stale-write protection ('an older edit never overwrites a newer one; it is then answered with applied: false'). It could say more about what is discarded when every:null is sent, but coverage is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then mutation semantics, then usage guidance; each sentence carries weight and none is filler. It is dense but coherent, with only the final read-back sentence feeling slightly tacked on.

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 5-parameter nested mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers behavior, defaults, and usage. Output/return values need not be explained, though error or permission conditions are not addressed, leaving a small 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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the schema already documents every/muted_until null semantics and changed_at queuing, and the description largely restates those. It does consolidate the interval-basis rule ('whichever basis arrives first makes it due'), but adds little that isn't already structured.

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 and resource ('Set the user's own schedule for one maintenance task on one grinder or machine') and enumerates the three modes: custom interval, disabling, muting. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_maintenance_offset, list_maintenance_due and log_maintenance without opening a schema.

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 a clear trigger ('when the user states how often they do a task or asks to be left alone about one') and an explicit exclusion ('never to invent an interval'), plus points to list_grinders/list_machines as the read source. It does not name a competing write sibling such as set_maintenance_offset, so it stops just short of full alternative routing.

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