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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive create that is not idempotent. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: default type coverage (all types, including future ones), default hours inherited from the location, and the mode-dependent behavior of limits. It omits failure behavior and permission requirements, but the domain semantics are well disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries distinct information (defaults, alternatives, mode caveat). Dense domain jargon (assignDoors, capacity mode) slightly reduces immediate readability but nothing is wasted.

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 4-parameter create with no output schema, the description covers defaults, sibling routing, and mode-conditional semantics, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is what the call returns, which is minor given no output schema is declared.

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 25%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it explains that appointmentTypeIds defaults to all types, that weeklyHours is optional and otherwise inherits the location's hours, and points to update_door for the alternative. It still doesn't describe the weeklyHours window shape, but the nested schema fields cover the format.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource ('Add a dock door') and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming update_door (modify limits/hours) and set_up_location (add types and doors together). An agent can pick this over the alternatives without opening any 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?

It gives explicit routing conditions: use update_door to change types/hours, set_up_location to add types and doors together by name, and it states that the door may be created before any types exist. It also flags a when-it-applies caveat (limits only matter under assignDoors, not in capacity mode), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs.

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