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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive mutation with no open-world side effects. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it requires the customer's Happy Hamper login and only applies before the pickup is collected. It does not discuss failure modes or partial-update behavior, but the added auth and timing context is substantive.

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 front-loaded and efficient: the first sentence states the action, timing, and mutable fields, and the second adds the login prerequisite. There is no redundant or wasteful text.

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 non-destructive update tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: auth requirement, timing constraint, and the modifiable fields. It could be more complete by clarifying partial updates or expected behavior after the change, but it is largely sufficient.

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 only 60% schema description coverage, the description usefully names four of the five parameters in plain language: bag count, Job notes, 24-hour turnaround, and detergent/scent. It does not explain the required pickupId parameter or elaborate on null/default behavior, but the field mapping is clear and compensates for much of the schema gap.

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 — change one upcoming pickup — and enumerates the modifiable attributes: bag count, job notes, turnaround, detergent and scent. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings such as cancel_pickup or book_one_time_pickup 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?

It gives clear usage context: use this for an upcoming pickup before collection, and it names the customer login prerequisite. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to cancel_pickup for cancellations, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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