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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds a genuinely useful operational constraint beyond that — a soft cap of 10 active schedules per workspace — which is exactly the kind of quota/rate-limit context the rubric credits. It still omits permission requirements and what happens when the cap is exceeded (rejected vs. soft-warned).

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the quota caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, this description is too thin. It never mentions the required idempotency_key, the email recipient cap, or how the schedule relates to the report_id it seeds from, leaving real gaps an agent must resolve by guessing.

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 50% across 10 parameters (including nested body/query objects), so the description is expected to compensate and does not: it says nothing about cadence values, recipient_emails limits, brand_id, report_id, or idempotency_key. The schema itself documents name, next_run_at, workspace_id, and the override objects, but the description adds zero parameter meaning on top of it.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new report schedule'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as aidelly_create_report, aidelly_update_report_schedule, or aidelly_list_report_schedules, so the agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., that a seed report must already exist), and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent content is the quota statement, which is a constraint rather than a when-to-use rule.

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