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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only or destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior: saving only seller-confirmed durations/hours, using the validated editor API, and avoiding publication, payment activation, and notifications. It does not mention auth requirements or idempotency behavior, but the added draft/approval context is valuable.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core save behavior, then add exclusions and the approval path. 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?

For a mutation tool with a nested config object, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required parameter semantics, config shape, versioning behavior, or the return payload that would include edit_url.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it never explains calendar_id, version, or the nested config structure. It only conceptually indicates that config contains service durations and business hours, which is insufficient for a 3-required-parameter mutation.

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 names a specific verb (save) and concrete resource content (seller-confirmed service durations and business hours), and clarifies the operation is a draft-save using the editor's validated API. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from create_booking_draft, but the draft/no-publication framing makes its role reasonably clear.

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 states an important usage constraint: no publication, payment activation, or notifications, and directs the agent to open edit_url for explicit owner approval. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus create_booking_draft or save_store_draft, leaving sibling selection partly inferred.

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