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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fallback semantics (no schedule ID means the default schedule is applied to all targets) but does not say that existing schedule assignments are replaced, or anything about partial failures across the batch.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; both the bulk action and the optional-parameter behavior are packed into one clause without redundancy.

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 destructive bulk mutation with no output schema and no annotations explaining overwrite consequences, the description is on the thin side. It covers the core action and the default fallback, but says nothing about what gets overwritten on the targeted event types or how batch failures are reported.

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 50% schema coverage, the description carries weight and does explain the optional selectedDefaultScheduleId behavior ('when none is given') on top of the schema's 'Schedule id from list_schedules' hint. The eventTypeIds array is left to the schema, but its meaning ('several event types') is reflected in the text.

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 gives a concrete verb-plus-resource ('Make several event types use one schedule') which matches the bulk mutation in the name and schema. It does not name a sibling or contrast with related tools like update_schedule or delete_schedule, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

'...or the default schedule when none is given' explains the condition that selects the fallback behavior, which is the main usage decision for this tool. There is no statement of when to prefer per-event updates instead, nor any prerequisite such as needing valid event type IDs or a schedule ID from list_schedules.

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