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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It specifies Moscow time, the ability for the from/to window to span midnight, and that the section is inferred from the group name. It does not mention whether an existing schedule is overwritten or what happens for unsupported groups, but the behavioral details go well beyond the schema.

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?

The description packs mode selection, examples, timezone, disable behavior, and scope into a few compact sentences with no filler. The examples are concrete and the structure follows the order an agent would need to compose a call.

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 tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description covers the core behavior and parameter semantics well enough to construct a valid call. Minor omissions include the effect of re-setting a schedule and handling of invalid or unsupported groups, but the required group parameter's role is implied and an output schema exists.

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?

At 0% schema description coverage, the description explains almost every parameter: mode values, days 1..7 with 1=Monday, times examples, everyHours, from/to window, and enabled=false. It does not literally name the 'group' parameter or the underscore in 'from_', but the examples and phrasing make the mapping clear.

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 opens with a clear verb and object ('Ставит автоматический запуск группы') and then explains the two scheduling modes. This makes it unmistakable that the tool sets an automatic schedule for a group, distinguishing it from siblings like parsee_get_schedule, which reads schedules.

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 gives explicit instructions for choosing between mode='week' and mode='every', provides a disable path via enabled=false, and states which group types are supported. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as parsee_get_schedule for reading or parsee_stop for stopping, but the usage context is still clear.

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