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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this overwrites state and is idempotent. The description reinforces the substitution ('Replaces the stored schedule') but adds little beyond the annotation, and does not say what is lost when replaced or whether the task must already exist.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and key inputs, followed by the replacement behavior. Slight density for one sentence but no wasted text.

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 destructive, idempotent write with no output schema, the description informs the agent of the overwrite but omits validation prerequisites (does the recurring task have to pre-exist?), guidance on omitting optional fields (cron, steps, enabled), and return behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 60%; taskRef and timezone are documented in the schema, while cron, steps, and enabled are not. The description only restates taskRef and timezone and mentions cron/steps exist, without explaining format for cron or the effect of enabled, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 given partial schema documentation.

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 (records/replaces) and resource (stored schedule of the recurring daily-update task), and names the fields taskRef, timezone, cron, steps. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings schedule_get and schedule_register, though the 'replaces the stored schedule' wording hints at a write vs. read/register distinction.

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 statement of when to use this vs schedule_register or schedule_get, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'Replaces the stored schedule' implies an overwrite but does not tell the agent whether it should call schedule_get first or when registration is needed instead.

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