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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description qualifies that blast radius by stating 'The version itself is not affected' — a genuinely useful clarification the annotations do not provide. The documented P-039 failure mode is also beyond structured data. It does not cover permissions or idempotency, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the non-impact statement and the error condition. No filler or restated title verbiage.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the scope of destruction, and the failure case. A brief note on what a successful response confirms (e.g., that the schedule is removed) would make it complete.

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% with a single required groupId already documented as 'Policy group ID'. The phrase 'for a group' in the description echoes rather than extends the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel the pending scheduled deployment for a group.' This clearly separates it from lexq_deploy_schedule (create) and lexq_deploy_schedules (list), though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — the agent can infer this is the undo for lexq_deploy_schedule. The P-039 precondition ('no pending schedule exists') adds a useful guard, but there is no explicit routing such as 'check lexq_deploy_schedules first' or a named alternative.

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