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

Annotations declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: the created shifts are drafts, they are invisible to crews until publish_shifts, the call proceeds without confirmation, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required. It stops short of covering failure modes or what happens on partial employee sets.

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, and each sentence carries information. It does repeat the draft concept twice ('saved as a draft until you publish it' and 'saved as drafts, so crews see nothing until publish_shifts'), a small redundancy that slightly blunts conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description covers the draft lifecycle, the publish follow-up, the auth requirement, and confirm-skipping behavior. Output format is not described, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the draft nature of the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious semantics: the employee_ids array produces one shift per employee (cardinality the schema does not convey) and start/end are ISO 8601. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the field descriptions.

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 (schedule/create a shift) with exact scope: one shift per employee on a job. It distinguishes itself from sibling clockshark_publish_shifts by explaining the draft-until-published relationship, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

Explains the workflow context (drafts, crews see nothing until publish_shifts) and names the routing alternative, but never states an explicit 'use this when you want X versus Y' rule or prerequisites beyond the API key. Clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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