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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is already known; the description adds genuinely new behavior: a two-step flow returning CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED with a confirmToken, and the instruction to inform the user before re-calling. It does not explicitly state the deletion is permanent or describe error outcomes, but the confirmation protocol is the key non-obvious trait and it is disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the identifier source, then the multi-step protocol. No filler and no repetition of annotation data.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the whole call lifecycle: obtaining the uid, the first call/response, the user notification, and the second call with the token. Nothing essential for a correct invocation 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 coverage is 50%: confirmToken is documented in the schema, while outOfOfficeUid has no description. The description compensates by explaining where the uid comes from (list_out_of_office) and how confirmToken is obtained and passed ('SAME arguments plus confirmToken'), which is exactly the missing semantics an agent needs.

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 and resource ('Delete an out-of-office period') and immediately names the sibling tool that supplies the required identifier (list_out_of_office). An agent can distinguish it from update_out_of_office or create_out_of_office without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for use: the uuid must come from list_out_of_office, and the call must be preceded by a user-facing confirmation. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives (e.g. update_out_of_office for modifying instead of removing), but the context is unambiguous.

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