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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the run is recorded as trigger: "schedule" with manual: true and fires regardless of next_unix or pause state. It doesn't state whether it blocks or what it returns, but the key side-effect behavior is covered.

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, tightly packed sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense with the quoted literals, but every clause earns its place.

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 2-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: purpose, side-effect recording, and state-independence are all present. The return/result behavior is the only notable gap.

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 both 'id' and 'tenant_key' are already fully documented in the schema, including the header-precedence nuance for tenant_key. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Run a schedule once right now, for testing.' It clearly conveys an immediate one-shot fire, distinct in spirit from pause/resume/set siblings, though it doesn't name a sibling to route against explicitly.

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?

'for testing' gives the intended context for use, and 'independent of next_unix or pause state' clarifies behavior relative to scheduling primitives. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., host.trigger.resume vs this).

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