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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but say nothing about side effects. The description adds substantial context beyond them: it stops new sales only, existing bookings remain, no one is messaged, and open_dates reverses it in one call. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, reversibility, and auth requirements in a logical order. Slightly dense across four sentences but each one contributes new 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?

Covers purpose, scope, side effects, reversibility, and the required API key access. With no output schema, it even points the agent to bookings_on_closed_slots for the count of affected bookings, leaving nothing material missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the times default. The description's 'all day or for chosen times' reinforces the times parameter but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema, so 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 (stop sales/close) and resource (activity dates) with scope (date range, all day or chosen times). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling civitatis_open_dates, which it explicitly names as the inverse operation.

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?

Names the alternative open_dates as the undo and clarifies it 'runs without asking first', giving the agent clear context for when to reach for it. It stops short of comparing against civitatis_set_quota or get_availability, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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