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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write, but the description adds real runtime behavior the annotations cannot convey: the automation runs unattended even when nobody is in the chat, results surface in Xenition, and connected-app actions are gated behind user approval.

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 trigger condition, then the effect, then the exclusion — three sentences with no wasted wording. The example is embedded efficiently rather than listed separately.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. For an 8-parameter creation tool the description still covers the essential who/when/where and the approval-safety model, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100% and each field is documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description only implies scheduling inputs indirectly through its example ('every Monday at 9'), adding little beyond the structured fields, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Creates a Xenition automation') with a clear resource and scope (scheduled, recurring). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling run_agent without the agent needing to open a 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ('when the user wants something done on a schedule') and includes a concrete example. It also names the exclusion and the alternative: 'Do not use for a one-off task now (use run_agent).'

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