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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds nothing behavioral beyond a REST endpoint path. Critically, the schema allows negative minutes but the description never explains that negative values effectively remove scheduled time, which is the behavior an agent most needs to know given the destructive hint.

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?

Two short front-loaded sentences. The REST endpoint mapping is arguably filler for an agent, but it is compact and does not obscure the core statement.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present, but the description omits the one non-obvious behavior: that negative minute values reduce scheduled time (consistent with the destructive hint). That omission is a clear but not fatal gap.

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 both 'id' and 'minutes' are documented in the schema, including the query-param mapping. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('Add') and resource ('scheduled time to a task'), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like reclaim_log_work or reclaim_update_task, which could plausibly also alter task time.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus reclaim_log_work or reclaim_update_task. No prerequisites, no mention that this is a mutation of the task's schedule. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name.

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