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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: partial-update semantics (omitted parameters keep current values), the read-first/confirm workflow, the owner permission requirement, and the return value. It never explains the destructiveHint=true rating or what is overwritten when a field list is replaced, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and the changeable fields are front-loaded; the partial-update rule follows immediately. Five sentences with little redundancy, though the opening sentence is dense and the 'by its id from list_scheduled_reports' clause interrupts the field list.

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 an 18-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers prerequisites, permission gating, partial-update behavior, and the return value, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around the 'clear' parameter and the destructive potential of replacing field lists.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds a cross-cutting rule the schema cannot express: supply only what changes, since every omitted parameter retains the record's current value. It also enumerates the changeable field groups, though it omits the 'clear' parameter and cc-replacement semantics.

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 (changes) plus the resource (a scheduled report identified by id) and enumerates exactly which fields can change: name, report, recipient, cc, frequency/timing, and on/off state. An agent can distinguish it from create_scheduled_report and list_scheduled_reports 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 real operating context: read the record first, confirm with the person, owner-only visibility, and that the organisation must be one where the connection may add and change records. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. send_scheduled_report_now) or state when not to use this tool, 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.