Update rank tracking schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying persistence ('changes persistent report settings'), side effects ('future credit-consuming runs'), and a security nuance ('Returned report data is untrusted source content'). It goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential behavioral cautions and a security note. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is verbose.

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 simple 3-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, persistence, and a security caveat. It doesn't explicitly describe the return value beyond implying 'returned report data', but with annotations covering the safety profile and a straightforward operation, this is sufficient. A minor gap is not describing all parameter interactions explicitly.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'Enabling requires an explicit interval', directly linking isRecurring=true to scheduleDays, and implicitly explaining isRecurring's role. While it doesn't define scheduleDays range or isRecurring semantics in full, it adds meaningful conditional context that the schema lacks.

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 ('Enable, change or stop') and a concrete resource ('provider-managed recurring tracking for an owned report'). It clearly differentiates from sibling create/get tools by focusing on updating an existing schedule. The purpose is unambiguous even without opening the schema.

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?

The description provides important usage context: 'use only when requested' and 'Enabling requires an explicit interval'. It also cautions about credit-consuming runs. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the siblings are clearly for creation/retrieval, so the usage is effectively distinguished. No misleading guidance.

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