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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass change'), the owner-only authorization requirement, and per-channel setup dependencies. It does not disclose what happens to dependent fields when frequency changes, so it falls short of 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?

Three tight sentences: the core action first, then the patch semantic, then prerequisites and id sourcing. Every clause carries information; none is redundant with the schema or title.

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 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action, update semantics, authorization, and channel dependencies, which is enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are edge cases around how frequency interacts with send_weekdays/send_day_of_month.

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 50%, with the delivery parameters (email/telegram, notify email, reports bot) explained but frequency, enabled, channels enum values, and scheduling arrays left to the schema. The description adds meaningful meaning for channels but does not compensate for the uncovered half.

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 concrete verb+resource pair: toggling a scheduled report on/off and redirecting/rescheduling it. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like dosai_list_report_settings or dosai_send_report_now without opening any 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 explicit prerequisites and routes: email reports depend on dosai_set_notify_email, Telegram requires the reports bot set up via dosai_get_cabinet_link with place=reports, and report ids come from dosai_list_report_settings. It also states 'Owner only'. No explicit when-not-to-use (e.g. use dosai_send_report_now for an immediate send), so not a full 5.

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