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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — "Existing limits and credits apply" — implying that configuring the mode consumes credits and is bounded by plan limits, but it never explains what stopping Auto Mode does to in-flight applications or already-queued attempts.

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 sentences, the action and its settings front-loaded, with the constraint note trailing. No wasted words and nothing an agent must read past to find the core behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile. What remains missing — the side effects of disabling Auto Mode and whether credit consumption is immediate — is a modest gap for a destructive mutation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: "start or stop" maps to the enabled boolean, "daily attempts" maps to per_day, and "IANA timezone" tells the agent the required string format that the bare string/maxLength 100 schema does not. It omits that per_day is bounded at minimum 1, but that is documented in the schema itself.

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 names a specific verb pair and resource ("Start or stop Auto Mode") plus the two configurable settings, so an agent knows this writes configuration rather than reads it. It never names get_auto_mode, its obvious read counterpart, so differentiation is only implied by the mutation verbs.

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?

It says what the tool does but never states when to use it instead of get_auto_mode, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether a subscription/credits must exist first). The closing note about existing limits is a constraint, not usage routing.

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