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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds valuable context beyond them: apply captures a 'Before AI Schedule Proposal' baseline and commits all dates in one atomic operation. It also discloses the 100-task cap, feature gate, and role requirement.

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 purpose, then the workflow, then constraints. Dense but every sentence earns its place, though the trailing 'Cap: 100 tasks. Feature: aiAdvanced (PRO+).' fragments are slightly terse.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-behavior burden, and it adequately explains the preview-then-apply contract, atomic commit, and baseline capture. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning to mode beyond the schema's per-parameter text (preview then apply) and frames when apply is safe. previewId and leveling details are already well covered in the schema.

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 (auto-schedule/propose) and resource (project schedule) with scope: fits all tasks before a target deadline while respecting dependencies. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gantt_optimize, resource_leveler_analyze, and propose_deadline_extension.

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 prescribes the multi-turn workflow: call mode="preview" first, then mode="apply" after the user confirms. It also states prerequisites (project Owner or Manager role for apply), a task cap, and the PRO+ feature gate.

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