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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('all failed schedules') and the state change ('reset to active'), but does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, or whether it only affects schedules in a 'failed' state. With no annotations, more detail about the bulk nature and implications would be warranted for full transparency.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the verb, resource, and purpose. There is no redundant language or filler, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly defines the action and target. However, it could add a note about what happens to the schedule's retry count or error history, which would make it slightly more robust. The low complexity keeps it from needing much more.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description effectively communicates that the operation acts on all failed schedules, providing semantic context that the empty schema lacks. No parameter details are needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Reset' with a clear resource ('failed schedules') and outcome ('to active for retry'). It precisely distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'resume_campaign' or 'process_campaigns' by focusing on failed schedules specifically.

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?

The description clearly implies the use case: retrying failed schedules. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know it applies to failed schedules that need reactivation. Sibling tools like 'resume_campaign' exist, but the description's specificity provides sufficient usage context.

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