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

Annotations already declare non-idempotent, open-world, destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit for non-obvious facts: it is billed like any launch, next_run_at is not moved, last_status/run_count are updated, and it returns the schedule plus the started instance/job. It does not explain what is 'destructive' about the call or how repeated launches interact.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by the state effects and return value. No padding; each clause conveys a distinct, useful fact.

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's return-value sentence is genuinely necessary, and it adds cost and counter-update behavior for a mutation tool. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and the meaning of the destructive hint.

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 id, workspace, and environment are already documented, including the workspace/environment defaults. The description adds no further meaning about how these scope the lookup (e.g. whether workspace must match the schedule's owner), so 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+resource: 'Launch a schedule's instance or job right now.' This separates it from run_job and create_schedule by making clear it acts on an existing schedule rather than creating or running a job directly, though no sibling is named 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?

'Whether the schedule is enabled or paused' gives a clear applicability condition — this is the manual-trigger path and works even for paused schedules, which the agent could not infer otherwise. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. run_job, update_schedule) or stating when not to use it.

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