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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that a DRAFT is created and nothing on Google changes (staging semantics not conveyed by readOnlyHint=false), that other special dates are preserved (merge, non-destructive behavior), and that a human approval step precedes publish_change.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is drafted, followed by preservation behavior, then the workflow constraint. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the essential unknowns: it mutates a draft not the live profile, preserves unrelated special dates, and specifies how to handle the return value and the publish path. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 description maps the three enum modes to real-world intent — 'a holiday closure' (closed), 'shorter hours' (hours), 'removing a special date' (clear) — adding meaning the raw enum values do not. It does not clarify the date format or the open/close requirement, which the nested schema items already carry.

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 (draft) and resource (special hours for specific dates) and enumerates the three concrete cases: holiday closure, shorter hours, clearing a date. An agent can distinguish it from propose_regular_hours purely from the description.

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 clear when-to-use context ('special hours for specific dates', dates clear back to usual weekly hours) and names the follow-up alternative publish_change with its condition ('only after they say yes'). It stops short of explicitly excluding/contrasting with propose_regular_hours, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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