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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description complements that by disclosing side effects the schema does not: dispatching employees and optionally notifying the customer and/or the pro. It still does not say whether dispatched_employee_ids replaces existing assignments or how scheduling conflicts are handled, so it is strong but not complete.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded: capability first, exclusion second, endpoint last. No filler, no restating of the title, and each sentence contributes 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key constraint (multi-day unsupported) and the optional side effects, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits what the call returns and any permission/precondition requirement, which is a minor remaining gap rather than a blocker.

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% and every parameter is already documented (start/end time as ISO-8601, arrival window in minutes, notify flags, employee ids). The description names the same fields but adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') and even names the underlying API operation (PUT /jobs/{job_id}/schedule), so the agent can tell it apart from create_job, dispatch_job and list_jobs without opening any 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 an explicit negative condition ('Jobs with more than one appointment (multi-day) cannot be rescheduled here'), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should use for those multi-day jobs, so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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