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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the capacity impact across the Workload, the weekend no-op behavior, the one-per-day constraint, and the Pro-plan requirement. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure needed for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and scope, then immediately explains behavioral consequences. It is dense but every sentence carries relevant information.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, constraints, plan gating, and edge cases like weekends. An agent has enough context to call it correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by explaining the effect of the 'day' parameter on weekly capacity and the weekend exception, plus it reinforces the 80-character name constraint.

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 states a specific verb and resource: adding a holiday to the user's calendar. It also scopes the operation by explaining that it applies to everyone in the Workload, which distinguishes it from personal time-off 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?

It gives clear usage context: holidays affect everyone's weekly capacity, and holidays on Saturdays or Sundays change nothing. It also notes that this is a Pro feature, though it does not explicitly compare against siblings like add_time_off or list_holidays.

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