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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description adds meaningful behavior: dispatch of employees, customer and/or pro notification, and the multi-day restriction. It states the underlying PUT endpoint, but does not say whether existing assignments are overwritten or what permissions are needed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and options, followed by the restriction and the endpoint. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a terse annotation set, the description covers scope, side effects and the key exclusion. It could still state what happens to existing schedule values or whether notify is defaulted, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description restates start/end, arrival window, dispatch and notification intent but adds no format, defaults, or interaction rules beyond what the schema provides.

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+resource ('Set or change a job's scheduled start/end and arrival window') with the optional side effects named, and explicitly carves out the multi-day/multi-appointment case that must use a different path. An agent can distinguish this from housecall_create_job and housecall_dispatch_job without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation (set or change an existing job's schedule) and one explicit exclusion: jobs with more than one appointment cannot be rescheduled here. It does not name the alternative tool to use for that multi-day case, so it stops short of a 5.

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