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

Annotations already disclose the write/idempotency/safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds the 'Business plan' plan-tier requirement, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it says nothing about what happens to existing windows on edit, and the 'upsert' wording sits oddly against idempotentHint=false without explanation.

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-loads the core action well and stays short. But the trailing 'Business plan.' is a cryptic one-word fragment with no verb or explanation, and the day/start/end details are dropped in without connecting them to the 'windows' parameter.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the time-format semantics but leaves id, name, timezone, and the nested windows structure largely unexplained, and the plan gating is only alluded to. It is minimally usable but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only illuminates 'day' (0=Monday..6=Sunday), 'start'/'end' (HH:MM) - fields that are not even top-level schema properties but presumably live inside the untyped 'windows' items. The actual parameters id, name, timezone are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource: 'Creates or edits a named weekly schedule.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like upsert_menu and upsert_queue, though it doesn't name them explicitly. The purpose is clear despite the terse phrasing.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The only usage signal is the fragment 'Business plan.' which hints at a plan prerequisite but is not explained. An agent gets no help choosing this over other upsert_* tools.

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