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

Annotations only mark it as a non-read, non-destructive mutation; the description goes further by disclosing the one-pending-schedule-per-group constraint, the exact actions that cancel it (manual deploy/rollback/undeploy, A/B test start, group archive), and the fail-closed snapshot-hash re-verification. No permission/auth or response detail, but the behavioral disclosure is substantial.

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 dense but front-loaded sentences that lead with the core action and then layer constraints and guarantees. No filler; the parenthetical asides are compact, though the third sentence is information-dense enough to slow a quick scan.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering only the safety profile, the description supplies the missing constraints, cancellation semantics, and execution guarantee. Only the success/return behavior is unaddressed, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 100% and each parameter is already described in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantics, clarifying that versionId's future effectiveFrom (not this call) supplies the timing, but nothing new about memo or groupId.

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+resource ('Schedule an ACTIVE version... to auto-deploy at that time') and contrasts behaviorally with the manual-deploy/rollback/undeploy and A/B-test siblings. An agent can tell this apart from lexq_deploy_schedules (list) and lexq_deploy_unschedule without opening schemas.

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?

Clear context on applicability: the version must be ACTIVE with a future effective start date, and the time is set on the DRAFT via effectiveFrom rather than passed here. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, so an agent must infer 'use this instead of manual deploy when deferring', leaving one step of inference.

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