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

The description discloses the key side effect: the dispatcher begins firing on the specified version's cron. It also mentions the minimum-interval floor enforcement, which is a behavioral constraint. Annotations indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation, which aligns with the described activation effect.

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 compact and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the action, the result, and an important constraint. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 provides the essential context for using the tool correctly: the active definition effect, dispatcher behavior, and the interval floor rule. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be described. It does not cover edge cases like invalid version or already-active schedules, but those are not necessary for basic correct usage.

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 with clear descriptions for both parameters: schedule_id and version. The description does not add significant extra detail about the parameters themselves, but the schema descriptions are sufficient for an agent to understand their roles.

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 ('Publish a schedule version'), the resource ('schedule'), and the outcome ('making it the ACTIVE definition — the dispatcher starts firing its workflow on the version's cron'). It distinguishes this from related schedule operations like create, update, run, and unpublish.

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 explains when to use the tool: to make a schedule version active and start the dispatcher. It also notes the constraint that the per-plan minimum-interval floor is enforced at publish time, giving the agent useful decision-making context. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the effect is clear enough.

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