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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further, explaining exactly what is destroyed: this is a WHOLESALE replace and an empty/omitted description clears the existing value. That is the precise operational consequence an agent needs and annotations cannot express.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the metadata-only scope comes first, then the replace hazard, then the remedy. The parenthetical and the long final clause cost a little readability but every sentence carries 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not describe returns; what remains — scope, destructive semantics, field-clearing behavior, and the recovery workflow — is fully covered for a 3-parameter mutation.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (schedule_id alone is documented), but the description compensates by explaining display_name's requiredness and the set-to-exact-value/clear-on-empty semantics of description. Minor gap: it does not reconcile the schema's 'description is required' with the guidance that omitting it clears the field.

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 specific verb and resource ('update a schedule's display name and description') and immediately bounds scope as metadata-only, distinguishing it from the versioned-definition siblings like create_schedule_version.

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?

Explicitly routes cron/workflow/input changes to create_schedule_version, and prescribes a read-then-write pattern with get_schedule before calling. Both the when and the alternative are named.

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