Schedule a CRM callback

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a contained, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the useful clarification that scheduling does not itself dial, but says nothing about what happens to an existing callback on update, whether updates overwrite fields, or any auth/permission constraints.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the key disambiguation ('doesn't place a call') placed immediately after. Slightly awkward phrasing in 'or update one you already have the ID for', but there is no 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 9 parameters, zero required at the schema level, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent to discover from the schema that agent and customer_id are required for creation and that at vs in_minutes are alternative scheduling modes. It is adequate but does not pre-empt the main ambiguity an agent would hit.

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 100%, so every one of the 9 parameters is already documented, including the patterns and the 'Required for a new callback' notes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Schedule a callback') and covers both the create and update paths, plus the negative scope 'doesn't place a call' which separates it from the call_* siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

'or update one you already have the ID for' implies the create-vs-update selection rule (new callback vs callback_id), and 'This doesn't place a call' implies a when-not condition for dialing tools. However, no alternative tool (e.g. crm_notify_agent) is named and no prerequisites are stated.

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