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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the 10-step cap, the editor-role permission requirement, and the human confirmation step before writing. It stops short of saying whether the new step is active immediately or how it interacts with the existing chain.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus the 10-step limit are front-loaded. The message_type explanation is necessarily dense but each clause carries distinct 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 and moderate schema coverage, the description supplies the constraints (step cap), preconditions (editor role, owner confirmation) and the enum semantics an agent needs to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are minor side effects and ordering relative to existing steps.

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 60%, and the biggest gap is message_type, which has an enum but no description in the schema. The description fully compensates by defining static/ai/ai_with_context and tying ai_with_context to message_text, which is otherwise undocumented in the schema. project_id, delay_hours and send_at_time are already covered by the schema, so this is a solid above-baseline score.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add a step to the end of the follow-up chain') plus a hard scope constraint ('at most 10 steps'), so the agent knows exactly what is created and where it lands. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it might be confused with (dosai_update_followup_step, dosai_list_followup_steps), but the add-vs-update-vs-list distinction is unambiguous from the wording.

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?

Usage is implied by 'add a step to the end of the follow-up chain', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus dosai_update_followup_step or dosai_schedule_message. 'Confirm the text and timing with the owner' is a workflow hint rather than a selection rule, so this sits at minimum-viable.

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