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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: creating the queue triggers no publishing. It doesn't cover auth requirements or return behavior, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the crucial non-effect. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 9-parameter create tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose, the sibling relationship and the key side-effect. Gaps remain around required inputs (workspace_id for creation, slots structure) but the structured fields largely carry those, so it is close to complete.

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 78%, with the schema documenting name, slots, timezone, channels and workspace_id. The description only echoes the recurring weekly slot concept and adds no syntax or format detail, so it does not meaningfully extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a content distribution queue') plus its defining characteristic ('recurring weekly time slots'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling aidelly_add_queue_items by naming it and clarifying that creation alone publishes nothing, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Explains the workflow relationship: content added via aidelly_add_queue_items publishes in the slots, while creating the queue publishes nothing. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't state explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. required workspace_id when creating content).

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