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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully exposes a real behavioral constraint — the per-tier minimum interval (free=900s ... enterprise=30s) — which prevents invalid calls, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the change takes effect immediately, or whether it is reversible.

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, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essential validity constraint but omits permissions/auth and any note on effect latency or what happens to existing schedules. 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the interval is measured in seconds and enumerates tier-specific minimums, giving concrete semantics for interval_seconds; endpoint_id remains undocumented but is self-evident from its name.

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+resource in plain language: 'Change how often an endpoint is probed' clearly maps to updating an endpoint's probe interval, and it reads distinctly from siblings like pause_endpoint or resume_endpoint. It stops short of naming any alternative, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. pause/resume) and no prerequisites or context. The tier minimums describe valid values rather than usage routing, so the agent must infer the invocation context entirely.

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