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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: partial update, replacement of holidays, year immutability, organization fixed, and date constraints. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the mutation semantics without hidden surprises.

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 (5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, constraints, and behavioral nuances.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: modifiable fields, partial update, replacement, year constraint, date validation. It does not describe return values or errors, but these are often implicit or handled by the platform, making the description adequate for most agent interactions.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description adds value beyond schema by clarifying that the organization is fixed, year cannot change, and holidays replace the list. It also emphasizes the profile_id requirement and organization ownership, enhancing the agent's understanding.

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 clearly states it updates an existing holiday profile, lists the modifiable fields (name, holiday list, default-for-countries, active flag, notes), and specifies the scope ('in your organization'). The verb 'update' and resource 'holiday profile' are explicit, distinguishing it from create or delete operations.

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 clear guidance: it updates only existing profiles, the organization is fixed, the year cannot be changed, and only supplied fields are updated (partial update). It warns that holidays replace the entire list. Lacks explicit mention of when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings, but the constraints are well communicated.

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