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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description usefully adds partial-update semantics ('Omitted fields are left unchanged'), which tempers the destructive warning, but it doesn't explain what can be destroyed, permission requirements, or side effects of toggling flags like dwellTrackingEnabled.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the partial-update rule immediately following. Every sentence 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential partial-update contract but omits scope boundaries versus update_location_details and any behavioral notes on the toggled scheduling flags. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (including the enum values for slotsPerHour and the assignDoors/doorCapacity interaction). The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 (Change) and resource (a location's scheduling settings), which is clear enough to act on. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling update_location_details, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related update_location_details sibling. The only implied usage comes from the 'scheduling settings' framing, which is thin for a tool competing with several update_* siblings.

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