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

Annotations establish that this is a non-read, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail: re-enabling resets the consecutive-failure counter. This goes beyond the schema and informs the agent of a side effect that affects downstream reasoning.

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 short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The most important usage instruction is front-loaded, and the inline JSON example communicates the re-enable semantics more efficiently than prose would.

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?

Given the small parameter set, 100% schema description coverage, existing output schema, and annotations already indicating a safe mutation, the description covers the essential operational and behavioral context. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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. The description adds meaning to the `enabled` parameter by making the exact payload shape explicit (`{enabled: true}`) and by explaining the reset behavior on re-enable, which is not inferable from the schema alone.

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?

Names a specific action ('change'), a specific resource ('a Routine'), and narrows the scope to exactly two operations: modifying the interval or toggling enabled state. The re-enable example further clarifies exactly what the tool does, leaving no ambiguity about its role relative to create/delete/list siblings.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use this to change a Routine's interval, or enable/disable it') and clarifies that re-enabling is done through this same tool ('there is no separate re-enable action'). It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the CRUD context makes the selection obvious.

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