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

The description claims idempotency, but the annotation idempotentHint is false, which is a direct contradiction. No other behavioral details are given, such as effects on related resources, authentication needs, or rate limits. With no annotations providing safety or behavior info, the description is both contradictory and insufficient.

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?

The description is extremely short (two words plus a qualifier), which is borderline under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structure or breakdown, and the single sentence does not efficiently convey critical usage details.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, 33% schema coverage, annotations lacking), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the update behavior, required parameters beyond those marked, return value, or how the idempotency key should be used. The contradiction further undermines trust.

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?

The input schema has 9 parameters with only 33% description coverage, meaning the schema itself does not document all parameters well. The description adds no parameter-level information, failing to compensate for the gap. It does not explain the role of idempotency_key, the meaning of cadence enum values, or how body/query overrides work.

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 clearly states 'Update a report schedule' which conveys the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_report_schedule or delete_report_schedule, and the qualifier 'idempotent' is somewhat misleading given the annotation contradiction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_report_schedule or get_report_schedule. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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