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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the authorization requirement (admins/owners), the cross-calendar hold side effect on the partner calendar, and that sync_existing retroactively places or releases holds on existing bookings and blocks — a write touching historical data. Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, so this adds genuine behavioral context.

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 action and its effect, but the return behavior is stated twice — 'Returns the company as it now stands' and then 'this call returns the value as it now stands' — which is redundant filler in an otherwise tight paragraph.

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?

Covers what the tool mutates, who may call it, the read-before-write workflow, and the return value (the company as it now stands) despite no output schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether disabling with sync_existing also releases existing holds.

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 only 33% (just company_id), but the description compensates well: it explains sync_existing's retroactive effect on existing bookings and blocks, and 'enabled' is clearly the on/off switch described in the opening sentence. It adds meaning beyond the bare boolean types.

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 and resource ('Switch X-Lock for a company') and explains the mechanic precisely: enabling it makes every block, option or booking on one partner calendar (MMK or Nausys) also place a hold on the other. That distinguishes it from sync_calendar and update_company, though it never names which sibling is the read counterpart it refers to.

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?

Gives a real precondition ('company admins and owners only') and an explicit ordering rule: read the current value with its read tool first. It also explains when sync_existing applies (only for existing bookings and blocks). It stops short of saying when not to enable X-Lock or what the read tool is called.

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