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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already indicates a mutation. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond the REST method (POST), which reinforces mutation but does not explain side effects, requirements, or what exactly changes. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them significantly.

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 only two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the REST endpoint in the second. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the action and provides the endpoint. It does not cover potential errors or prerequisites, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of schema descriptions.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions ('id' as task id, 'minutes' as minutes to add). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Add scheduled time to a task') with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like log_work or update_task by focusing on adding scheduled time rather than logging or editing. The REST endpoint adds precision.

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?

The context of use is implied: you use this when you want to add scheduled time to a task. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned (e.g., when to use log_work instead). It provides clear context but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance.

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