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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses meaningful behavior: partial-update semantics (omitted fields unchanged), that leaving days out of weeklyHours closes them for this door, that weeklyHours is clipped to the location's hours, that null reverts to location hours, and that isActive:false removes the door from service. This adds real destructive-effect context the annotations only flag generically.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then dense but purposeful parameter semantics. The long compound sentence about weeklyHours is somewhat run-on, but each clause carries distinct information (clipping, omitted days, null revert) that earns its place.

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 mutation tool with annotations but no output schema and six parameters, the description covers partial-update behavior, key parameter semantics, and side effects adequately. It stops short of mentioning permission requirements or any response/return behavior.

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 17%, so the description carries the burden and does so for the non-obvious parameters: appointmentTypeIds ([] = every type), weeklyHours (clipping and null-to-revert semantics), and isActive. It does not address name or the two required IDs, though those are largely self-explanatory.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Edit a dock door"), which clearly separates it from siblings like create_door, list_doors, and the location-level update tools. An agent can identify the target entity and operation 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "Edit" and the note that omitted fields are left unchanged. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus set_weekly_hours, update_location_settings, or create_door, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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