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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations by explaining that only supplied fields are changed and omitted fields retain their values. It also discloses permission boundaries. It does not describe side effects or return behavior, but with annotations present, this is acceptable transparency.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: the purpose comes first, followed by patch behavior, then authorization. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core action, partial update behavior, and permissions, which is good for selection. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return values, and parameter details like cron or time format are absent, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.

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 20%, and the description does not compensate by explaining what fields like cron, time, timezone, frequency, or day_of_month mean or what formats they require. The generic patch rule is useful, but the meaning of most parameters is left to schema names and enums alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update fields on an existing schedule.' It clearly implies this is not the create or delete operation, but it does not explicitly name a sibling such as createSchedule or listAgentSchedules for differentiation.

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 useful usage context by explaining partial-update semantics and who is authorized to update schedules. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention when the tool should not be used.

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