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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine context beyond that: the response of a repeated submission remains retrievable even after deletion, which explains retry behaviour the annotations only flag as 'idempotent'. It stops short of saying what exactly is destroyed or whether the deletion is recoverable.

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, purpose front-loaded before the retry note, no filler. The second sentence is slightly compressed and would benefit from a plainer formulation, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations plus full schema coverage close most gaps. Only the absence of usage guidance against sibling delete/update tools keeps it from being complete.

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%, including the block_id back-reference to coworking_staff_availability, the language enum and the submission_key retry contract, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about parameter format or usage; baseline 3 applies.

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 (entfernen/delete) and a specific resource (eine eigene Sperrzeit), and the possessive 'eigene' scopes it to the caller's own blocks. It does not name the sibling it differs from – coworking_staff_delete_special_day is the nearest look-alike and goes unmentioned – so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 description gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as coworking_staff_update_block or coworking_staff_delete_special_day. Only the implicit scope constraint ('eigene') hints at applicability.

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