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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds only the field-level 'what changes' view and the redirect concept (mapping to toTeamUserId); it says nothing about whether date changes affect existing bookings, required permissions, or whether omitted fields are preserved.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource, the changeable fields and the uuid prerequisite; nothing is wasted and no noise precedes the key information.

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-param mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential shape: what changes, and where the uuid comes from. The remaining gaps (replacement vs. patch semantics, effect on existing bookings, notes/showNotePublicly) are real but secondary given the annotations carry the safety contract.

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?

Coverage is 57%: startDate/endDate/reasonId are documented in-schema, but uuid is undocumented there and the description usefully supplies its source (list_out_of_office). It names dates/reason/redirect but omits notes and showNotePublicly and does not clarify that startDate/endDate/reasonId are required (i.e., that this behaves like a near-full replacement).

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 ('Change') and resource ('an out-of-office period') plus the affected fields (dates, reason, redirect), which clearly separates it from create_out_of_office and delete_out_of_office. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, costing a point, but the purpose is 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?

The parenthetical '(uuid from list_out_of_office)' gives one concrete prerequisite, so there is implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus create/delete, nor whether the period must already exist, leaving selection largely inferred.

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