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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the safety envelope (never publishes/funds/assigns/purchases), the idempotency contract (same key and identical input on retries), the optimistic-concurrency rule (scope edits need current revision), and the dedup guarantee (missed cycles create at most one proposal per recipe). These are exactly the traits annotations would otherwise cover.

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 the action set, then the negative boundary, then the behavioral contracts — no filler. Every clause (idempotency, revision, dedup cap) conveys information an agent needs before invoking a multi-branch mutation tool.

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 four-branch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it covers authorization, idempotency, concurrency, and the non-effects. It doesn't say whether archive is irreversible or what run_due returns when proposals are created, which are the remaining unknowns for a caller.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: it explains why revision exists (scope edits need the current revision) and how idempotency_key must be reused across retries. The one under-explained parameter is budget_cents, whose meaning and enforcement are never described.

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 concrete verbs and a concrete resource: create/edit an owner-authorized recurring scope, pause/resume/archive it, and create due private proposals. These map one-to-one onto the four oneOf branches in the schema, so an agent can tell exactly which action to pick and that this is not list_recurring_work or create_mission.

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 usage boundary ('Never publishes, funds, assigns, or purchases work') and a prerequisite ('Requires API key'), plus the revision requirement for edits — strong signals about when and how to call it. It stops short of naming a sibling to use instead (e.g. list_recurring_work to obtain ids/revisions), which is the only gap.

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