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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing downstream blast radius — the calendar governs Summer Slack sending hours (timezone, holidays) and queued posts re-check it before delivery. It does not say whether the write replaces the entire policy or what happens on a revision mismatch, which is the main remaining gap.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence could be tighter, but it carries non-obvious behavioral information rather than padding.

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 destructive, 7-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description covers the concept but omits concurrency-failure behavior, whether the policy is fully replaced, and the meaning of pauseOnCustomerWait. Adequate, 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 13% (just idempotency_key), so the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping prose to calendar/timezone/holidays, commitments, expectedRevision and effectiveAt, but leaves pauseOnCustomerWait, reason, and company entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Save') and the resources written (business hours, response commitments) plus two key preconditions (expected revision, effective date). The write-vs-read distinction from summer_support_policy_read is inferable from the tool name and the 'Save' verb, but the description never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious prerequisite workflow — that expectedRevision must come from summer_support_policy_read before calling this. The second sentence describes a side effect, not a usage condition.

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