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

The description asserts '(idempotent)', but the annotations explicitly declare idempotentHint=false. This is a direct conflict between the prose and the machine-readable hint, leaving the agent unsure whether a retry is safe. The description also omits any mention of the destructiveHint=true behavior or the required idempotency_key.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The terseness is the issue rather than verbosity, but structurally it is clean and well-sized for what little it says.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with 9 parameters (33% documented), a required idempotency key, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It does not cover side effects, required permissions, or the meaning of the idempotency contract.

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 33% across 9 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate but adds no parameter information at all. It never explains cadence, next_run_at, recipient_emails, brand_id, or the role of the required idempotency_key.

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 a report schedule'), which is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from related siblings such as aidelly_get_report_schedule, aidelly_delete_report_schedule, or aidelly_create_report_schedule, so an agent must rely on the name alone to disambiguate.

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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about required workspace context. The single parenthetical '(idempotent)' is not usable usage guidance.

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