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

Annotations declare it as non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description restates the operation but adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no rate limits, no authorization needs, no side effects. The annotations carry most of the burden.

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?

Very concise—two sentences, front-loads the purpose, then lists parameters. No wasted words. However, the parameter list is abrupt and could be better formatted for readability.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, but the description fails to cover key contextual details: what an info card is, how it relates to schedules/stops, whether the template must exist, or what happens on failure. For a mutation with nested body object and zero schema descriptions, this is incomplete.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions. The description briefly lists parameter names (id, title, description, triggerType, linkedScheduleStopId) and notes title is required, but adds no format, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema structure already shows. Baseline for low coverage is lower, but the description does provide some parameter enumeration.

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 and resource: 'Add an info card to a template.' This clearly distinguishes it from update_template_info_card and reorder_template_info_cards. Sibling differentiation is implicit through the verb but not explicitly called out, keeping it just below 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must the template exist first?), and no mention of alternatives like add_program_info_card. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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