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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does add substantial context: full replacement of prior state, receiver-local time, quiet-hours precedence, defer vs skip outcomes, and a three-day encrypted-queue limit. However, it never says what the call returns or whether the write is reversible, which matters for a state-replacing mutation. Solid extra context, but not complete disclosure.

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 paragraph that leads with the action and then the replacement prerequisite. It is dense but every sentence is functional; the only minor waste is that 'empty list removes the schedule' is stated both in the prose and in the windows schema description.

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 two-parameter but semantically rich mutation with no output schema, the description covers replacement semantics, time zone, precedence, queue behavior, and the three-day cutoff. The missing piece is what the tool returns or how the agent can confirm the new schedule, which a caller might reasonably want.

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 the per-field descriptions already define kind precedence, weekday numbering, time patterns, timezone fallback, isEnabled, and quietAction. The prose largely restates that (local time, empty list clears) rather than adding new per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Задаёт окна публикации маршрута целиком' and immediately specifies what the windows mean (allow vs quiet). It is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling route_set_* tools, which each touch a different route property, because the description names its exact domain (days of week and hours).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to read the current schedule first via route.show before calling, because the previous set is fully replaced. It also names the terminal case (empty list removes the schedule) and defines precedence between allow and quiet windows, so there is little left to infer.

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