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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds a genuine postcondition they do not carry: the removed interval becomes bookable again. It still omits what happens on an unknown/invalid id and does not address the non-idempotent hint, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

A single sentence with the action and its outcome front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, id source, and effect. The remaining gap is failure behavior for an invalid or already-removed id.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema documents nothing. The description contributes only that the id identifies a time-off block and lives in my_calendar, which hints at where to obtain it but gives no format, example, or error semantics for the id.

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 (remove), resource (a time-off block), the identifier it operates on (id), and the effect (reopening that time for bookings). The inverse relationship to the sibling block_time_off is implied by 'remove a time-off block' but no sibling is named, so this is clear without explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the undo of block_time_off, but the description never says when to use this versus re-blocking, nor any precondition (e.g., the block must exist, and my_calendar must be the source of the id). No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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