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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and adds clarity about the draft/publish semantics. It does not contradict any annotation, but it could be more explicit about side effects like whether the previous version remains intact. However, given that it is a versioning operation, the behavior is reasonably well conveyed.

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?

The description is two sentences, tightly packed with relevant information, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundant detail and uses a clear structure that separates the primary action from the publish option and the alternative tool for new schedules.

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?

The description is self-contained for its intended use. It references the related definition-schema tool and the alternative create_schedule tool, providing enough context for an agent to understand the workflow. The output schema is not described, but that is not necessary for successful invocation, and the description fully covers the calling conventions.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds value by directing the agent to fetch the definition schema from get_schedule_definition_schema to author the 'definition' parameter correctly, which goes beyond the schema's static description.

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 clearly states the action (add a new version), the target resource (an existing schedule), and explicitly differentiates from creating a brand-new schedule by pointing to create_schedule. This precise scoping makes it easy for an agent to select this tool over siblings like create_schedule or update_schedule.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (only for existing schedules) and when not to (use create_schedule for new ones). It also explains the publish parameter's effect ('Pass publish=true to activate this version immediately'), giving the agent clear instructions on how to invoke it in different scenarios.

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