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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two important behaviors: the destination week must be empty, and staff no longer on the team become open shifts. These are exactly the kind of mutation preconditions and side effects an agent needs before calling the 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 compact sentences front-load the usage condition and then state the critical constraint and side effect. There is no wasted text.

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?

Given full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety flags, the description supplies the remaining practical context: when to use it, the empty-week precondition, and what happens to former team members. No essential calling information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so from_week_start, to_week_start, and workplace_id are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the last-to-next-week use case but adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: copying a week's schedule from one week into another. It adds useful scope with 'into an empty week only' and side-effect context, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as fill_week or edit_shifts.

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 clearly says when to use the tool: starting a week from another week's schedule, usually last week into next week. It also gives a key exclusion, 'copies into an empty week only,' but does not name alternative tools or explain when to choose them instead.

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