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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the single-pending-schedule constraint, the exact events that silently cancel a schedule, and the HASH_MISMATCH failure mode where nothing is deployed. That is precisely the context an agent needs before committing a write that will later change live behavior.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by constraints, cancellation triggers, and the failure mode in a logical order. No filler, though the density is high enough that an agent must read the whole block to get the constraints.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, cardinality limits, cancellation side effects, and failure semantics. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that the deployment time is not a parameter of this call at all but comes from effectiveFrom set on the DRAFT before publishing. That clarifies why the parameter set is only groupId/versionId/memo. The memo parameter is left to the schema.

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 ("Schedule an ACTIVE version ... to auto-deploy at that time") and immediately names the artifact it produces ("Scheduled Deployment"). It is clearly distinguishable from lexq_deploy_schedules (listing) and lexq_deploy_unschedule (cancelling), and it explicitly notes the unusual mechanic that no time argument is passed.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (version must be ACTIVE with a future effective start date) and a strong when-not list: manual deploy/rollback/undeploy, starting an A/B test, or archiving the group all cancel the schedule. It also states the one-pending-schedule-per-group limit. The only gap is that it never points to lexq_deploy_unschedule as the explicit way to cancel a pending schedule.

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