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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the frozen-payload semantics ('applies the hours that were frozen at prepare time, never hours supplied here'), single-use consumption, a concrete ten-minute expiry, and sign-in binding. These are exactly the behavioral facts the destructive/non-idempotent hints cannot convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the source of data, with constraints packed into the final clause. No filler; slightly dense with clauses stacked in one sentence but nothing 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 destructive, non-idempotent one-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers preconditions, payload provenance, and lifetime. The remaining gaps are the unexplained 'intent' argument and what happens on expiry or partial failure, which slightly under-prepare the agent.

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?

The sole parameter 'intent' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no format, no expected content, no relation to the staged change. At 0% coverage the description needed to compensate and does not, leaving the agent to guess what value to supply for the required field.

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 ('Apply opening hours staged by update_hours') and explicitly names the sibling that stages the data, so an agent can distinguish it from update_hours at a glance. The prepare/confirm relationship is stated outright rather than inferred.

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?

Makes clear this is the second step of a two-phase flow, only valid after update_hours has staged changes, and adds eligibility constraints (single use, ten-minute expiry, same sign-in). It lacks an explicit 'if the window expired, call update_hours again' instruction, but the preconditions are unambiguous.

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