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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the authorization model (owner vs team superadmin), the patch semantics of omitted fields, and the non-obvious split where timing changes land in an automation's draft while `enabled` applies immediately. That deferred-vs-immediate distinction is exactly the kind of behavior an agent could not infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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-loaded with the core contract ('only supplied fields are changed') and structured as contract, permissions, then revision behavior. The final sentence is long and dense but carries genuinely load-bearing information, so little is wasted.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: partial-update contract, permissions, and the draft/pending_change effect. Missing only return/confirmation details and any note on why destructiveHint is set.

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 only 20% (agent_id, schedule_id), and the description only clarifies two optional fields in prose — 'timing' and 'enabled'. It says nothing about cron vs frequency vs day/time/day_of_month/recurring interrelationships, leaving most of the 10 parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Update fields on an existing schedule') and immediately pins down patch semantics, which distinguishes it from createSchedule/deleteSchedule. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource specificity makes the target unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied via the permission model (owners vs team superadmins) and the partial-update rule, so an agent knows when it is permitted and how omitted fields behave. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance, e.g. no pointer to createSchedule/deleteSchedule or a disable-only path.

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