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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses provider-specific rejections for Square, Calendly, TidyCal, Cal.com, and GoHighLevel, the fact that closeWorkDays removes stored hours, and the requirement to obtain explicit approval. These are meaningful behavioral constraints an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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?

The purpose and required identifier are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries a rule that prevents a concrete failure mode. The text is dense and packs several rules into long clauses, but little is genuinely redundant.

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 12-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: approval, provider restrictions, partial-update behavior, and ambiguity handling. It does not describe the result of the call or what happens to omitted versus null fields, which is a minor remaining gap given the annotations and schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema does not: workDays opens days while others are preserved, closeWorkDays closes exact days and strips stored hours, and ambiguous cutoff language must be resolved before setting workHoursByDay. It does not add much for straightforward fields like isActive or timezone, but the risky parameters are well explained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Change the booking settings of one connected calendar by calendarShortId." It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as calendar_list, update_work, and updateTimezone because it scopes the action to a single calendar's booking configuration.

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?

It gives explicit operational guidance: send only changed fields, use workDays only to open days, use closeWorkDays to close exact days, do not infer closeWorkDays from a partial list, and ask once about ambiguous until/close times. It also names when the tool cannot apply edits (provider-hosted calendars) and requires explicit approval before calling.

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