budget_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: an authorization requirement (manage scope), a consent requirement (explicit user request), and a semantic boundary that this is accounting only, not an actual payment. It does not explain side effects of pausing or editing an existing schedule.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the critical gating constraint ('Requires manage scope and explicit user request') front-loaded before the action description. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, authorization, and ID sourcing but leaves the agent guessing about the response (does it return the new schedule ID?) and about how `pool`, `day`, and `time` interact to define a schedule. Adequate as a minimum, but not complete.

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 only 11% (effectively just `amount`), and there are 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load and mostly doesn't. It implicitly maps a few fields — 'daily or monthly' to `frequency`, 'pause' to `enabled`, 'existing schedule IDs' to `id` — but `pool`, `day`, `time`, `name`, and the required `request_id` are never explained, which is a serious gap for a mutation tool.

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 set and resource: 'Create/edit/pause a daily or monthly credit schedule.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling lister by noting 'Existing schedule IDs come from budget_schedules.' What it leaves unresolved is how create vs. edit vs. pause is selected (apparently by presence of `id` / `enabled`), so the multi-mode nature stays slightly ambiguous.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given: 'Requires manage scope and explicit user request,' plus the scoping note 'Only accounting, not a payment.' That is genuinely useful routing context absent from the schema. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling handles related operations (e.g., budget_schedules for listing).

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