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

Goes beyond annotations by detailing the exact replace semantics: display_name is required, description is set exactly as passed, and omitted description clears it. This gives full transparency about the mutation's effects.

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 slightly verbose but every sentence carries essential information (behavior, alternative tool, and prerequisite). The structure is logical and not wasteful.

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 the sibling tools, it effectively disambiguates from related schedule operations and the versioned definition. No critical details are missing for correct invocation.

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?

While only schedule_id has a schema description, the description adds meaning to display_name and description by explaining the wholesale replace and clearing behavior. This compensates for the low schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the specific action (update display name and description) and explicitly contrasts with create_schedule_version for other fields. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: directs users to create_schedule_version for cron/workflow/input changes, and warns about the wholesale replace behavior, advising to read current values first. This is actionable and complete.

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