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

Annotations only give the safety envelope (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true); the description goes well beyond by disclosing required permissions (read, write, process), the server-side retention of inputs with an explicit 'never put secrets in them' warning, the notification policy and its default, version-pinning/abort behavior, and shared permission inheritance with run_workflow.

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?

Dense single paragraph with the core action front-loaded and no filler sentences; each sentence carries distinct operational information (preconditions, secrets, notifications, return values, permissions). Slightly overloaded as one block rather than separated concerns, which costs it the top score.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers returns ('scheduleId and the next run time'), permissions, failure/notification behavior, environment requirements, and the version-safety contract. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the semantics of expectedVersion (each run uses exactly that version), the default of notify ('failures, the default'), and the server-side storage of inputs. It does not, however, add anything on time/timeZone formatting or deviceId resolution beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Run a saved workflow on a schedule ... with no chat open', immediately distinguishing it from run_workflow (immediate execution), get_workflow (read) and list_scheduled_workflows (enumeration). An agent can select it without opening the 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?

Explicitly prescribes the prerequisite sequence ('Review it first with get_workflow and pass the version it showed as expectedVersion') and names the sibling it parallels ('runs it on that computer the way run_workflow does, with the same permissions'). It also states the when-not condition: it 'does not start if the workflow has changed', and the environment precondition that the computer must be on and connected at that time.

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