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

No annotations, but description discloses login requirement, side effects (platform LLM, backend scheduling, notifications), timeout/unknown-result handling, absence of persistent request dedup key, and need to query current state. This is strong behavioral context.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: login requirement and core action first, then reason mapping, side-effect warning, timeout guidance, verification. No filler; all sentences carry operational 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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description supplies the missing safety/operational context: side effects, retry caution, dedupe absence, and a verification path via get_my_dispatch. Sufficient to invoke safely.

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 0%, so description must carry semantics. It explains all reason enum values and their effects, but does not describe arrangementId or note beyond schema constraints. Covers the critical enum, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Description names a specific verb (decline) and resource (dispatch arrangement/suggestion), and scopes it to suggestions not yet accepted. This distinguishes it implicitly from accept_dispatch_arrangement, though it does not name the sibling or contrast skip_dispatch_step.

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?

Provides clear usage context: only for not-yet-accepted suggestions, with reason-specific outcomes (SWAP swap, WRONG_DIRECTION/OTHER reschedule, HAVE_ALREADY/NOT_NOW skip). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool routing (e.g. accept or skip_dispatch_step), so 4 not 5.

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