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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the backend's auto-create-each-week behavior and the confirm-gate preview semantics, but omits auth/permission needs, whether an update replaces or merges existing questions, and what the response contains.

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 with the core purpose first and parameter hints after. Some content (dayOfWeek mapping, timeOfDay format, question.type enum) duplicates the schema, which is mild redundancy but not bloat.

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 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (recurrence, confirm-gate, update path) but leaves gaps on the clientId parameter, isActive, and update semantics. Adequate but not complete given the structured-field void.

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 only 57%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It explains dayOfWeek, timeOfDay, the questions type enum, and the update-vs-create flag, but it calls the update key "_id" while the schema names it scheduleId, and it says nothing about clientId, isActive, or questions.required. Marginal value over the schema, with one naming mismatch.

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 ("Set a recurring weekly check-in schedule for a client") and the "recurring weekly" qualifier implicitly separates it from the one-off create_checkin sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

It gives real conditional guidance: provide _id to update, omit to create new, and confirm must be set to execute rather than preview. However, it never says when this recurring-schedule tool is preferable to create_checkin (a single check-in) or how it relates to list_checkins, so the sibling routing is left to inference.

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