set_audit_schedule

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

Beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent/open-world/destructive flags), the description discloses first-run timing, the external worker dependency, failure backoff, and that disabling leaves an active run to finish. This is exactly the operational context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layers prerequisites and edge-case semantics. Dense but every clause carries information; the opening 'Explicitly' is the only slight filler.

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 no output schema and only coarse annotations, the description still covers behavior, prerequisites, timing, and failure handling well. It falls short only on documenting the required project_id and return/feedback behavior for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It supplies the interval range (60 seconds to 31 days) for interval_seconds, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the required project_id or the default false for enabled. Only partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (a project's recurring audit), and the word 'recurring' plus the interval range clearly distinguishes it from one-off siblings like run_project_audit and audit_live_site.

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 a real prerequisite (a separate mcp-seo-monitor worker must be running, stdio server launches no background work), which implies when this is usable. However, it never names or contrasts an alternative tool, so the agent must infer that this is the scheduling counterpart to run_project_audit.

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