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

Annotations only indicate it's not read-only and not destructive. The description adds rich behavioral context: the snapshot hash is sealed at scheduling and re-verified at execution (fail-closed), and it enumerates actions that cancel the schedule. This goes far beyond the annotations, informing the agent of side effects and safety mechanisms.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: the core purpose, the constraint and cancellation triggers, and the safety mechanism. Front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant phrases or 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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it does, constraints (one per group), cancellation conditions, and the fail-closed hash verification. An agent has all the information needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description reinforces that versionId must be an ACTIVE version with a future effective start date, but this is already stated in the schema. No additional parameter-level meaning is added beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Schedule an ACTIVE version with a future effective start date to auto-deploy at that time.' It clearly distinguishes this from immediate deployment (lexq_deploy_deployable) and other deploy operations, and the title 'Schedule Deployment' matches the action.

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?

It implicitly conveys when to use this tool by describing the scheduling behavior and constraints: one pending schedule per group, and cancellation conditions (manual deploy/rollback/undeploy, starting A/B test, archiving). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling names make the context clear. It gives enough guidance for an agent to decide if scheduling is appropriate.

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