Record the recurring schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: recording stops the app's reminders and signals to the owner that the loop is automated. It does not explain the destructive path implied by the 'cleared' flag, so it is not complete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the call-timing condition, and the example is embedded efficiently. Slightly dense but every clause carries 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the trigger, format example, and app-level effect are all covered for a simple two-parameter write. The only gap is the semantics of 'cleared', which is not addressed anywhere in the description.

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 50%: 'cleared' is documented in the schema, but 'description' has only a minLength. The description compensates partially by giving a concrete example value ('Claude scheduled task, daily 9:00 and 18:00 America/Los_Angeles') that shows what the string should contain, but it says nothing about 'cleared'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it records the recurring 'Run Agent Chef' schedule that was set up externally. An agent can tell what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling run_agent_chef, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 clear trigger and prerequisite: 'Call after creating (or changing) the recurring task in your own scheduler.' That is actionable context with no exclusions or named alternatives, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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