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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: cloning stays within the same company, assignments are retained, and automatic booking is forcibly disabled on the clone. It omits what happens on commit vs preview, permission requirements, and reversibility, which is significant for a mutation tool.

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 behavioral constraints front-loaded and no wasted prose. 'Default preview' is terse to the point of being ambiguous, but the structure is efficient.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers only a fraction of the surface: it leaves the majority of parameters undefined and does not clarify commit-vs-preview behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input side is under-specified.

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% across 7 parameters. The description only indirectly maps to dry_run ('default preview') and to company_name via the same-company constraint; it says nothing about kind, changes, new_name, source_rule_id, or operation_key. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (clone) and resource (AI booking rule) plus the scope constraint 'within the same exact company', which differentiates it from create_ai_booking_rule. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action and scope are unambiguous.

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?

'Default preview' hints that the tool defaults to a dry run, but there is no statement of when to choose clone vs create_ai_booking_rule or update_ai_booking_rule, and no prerequisites or when-not conditions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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