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

The annotations are minimal (openWorldHint and destructiveHint only), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that publishing switches the active definition, that the dispatcher begins firing on the version's cron, and that a per-plan minimum-interval floor is enforced. There is no contradiction with destructiveHint=false.

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 with no wasted words. The primary effect is stated first, followed by the enforcement behavior. It is front-loaded and easy to 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?

Given only two required parameters, an output schema, and a small annotation set, the description fully covers what the tool does, what changes as a result, and what constraint is enforced. Combined with the sibling list, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both required parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description reinforces the meaning of 'version' by linking it to activation, but it does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a schedule version.' It also states the concrete effect — making it the ACTIVE definition that the dispatcher starts firing on the version's cron — which clearly distinguishes this from creating a schedule version, running one now, or unpublishing.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when the caller wants to activate a schedule version and have the dispatcher begin firing its workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as create_schedule_version or run_schedule_now, but the behavioral context is strong enough that an agent can infer the right moment to call it.

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