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

Annotations set destructiveHint=false, and the description explains exactly why: past and upcoming appointments are preserved, so this is a soft deactivation rather than a data-destroying delete. That is genuine context beyond the annotation, though the description omits whether the change is reversible or what permissions are required.

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?

Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the persistence caveat immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key consequence (existing bookings retained) but leaves the parameter format and reversibility unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit when constructing the call.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'service' parameter, so the description must carry the burden but does not say whether it expects an ID, slug, or display name. It only implies a service entity exists, adding almost nothing actionable beyond the parameter name.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Stop offering a service for new bookings'), which is specific and unambiguous. It does not, however, name the sibling save_calendar_service or otherwise explicitly distinguish this deactivation from other calendar mutations.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus save_calendar_service, cancel_appointment, or update_calendar_settings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The phrase 'for new bookings' hints at scope but stops short of routing the agent.

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