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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable transparency by clarifying that the versioned definition is untouched and that this operation only affects metadata. It does not contradict annotations, though it does not discuss side effects on published schedules or authentication.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the operation and scope, then routes to the correct sibling for other changes. Every clause contributes value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple three-parameter metadata update, this description is complete enough. It defines the scope, names the alternative tool, and the output schema handles return-value expectations. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 only documents schedule_id, leaving display_name and description unexplained. The description compensates by treating them as metadata fields and explicitly separating them from cron/workflow/input, which is important semantic context for correct invocation. It does not add formatting constraints, but none are obviously needed.

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 precise action: updating a schedule's display name and description. It explicitly narrows the scope to metadata-only and distinguishes this from create_schedule_version, so an agent knows exactly what resource and fields are affected.

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?

Clearly tells the agent when to use this tool (metadata-only changes) and when not to (changes to cron/workflow/input should use create_schedule_version). This explicit routing prevents confusion with the most similar sibling tool.

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