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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds valuable context by stating that existing bookings are kept, which clarifies the destructive scope and reassures that the operation does not cascade to bookings. It also notes the business-owner auth requirement, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The audience restriction, core action, and key side-effect are all front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: who can use it, what it replaces, and that bookings are preserved. It does not mention whether the operation is reversible or what the response looks like, but the annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness, so the remaining gaps are minor.

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 only 33%, so the description carries some burden. It explains that resource_id selects a staff member/room and business_id is only needed for multi-business management, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the hours array format or the open/close time format, leaving the agent to rely on the schema's sparse 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Replace weekly hours') and resource ('business, or one staff member/room with resource_id'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like owner_get_schedule. It also names the intended audience ('Only for business owners signed in to Awning'), which helps an agent select it over customer-facing tools.

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 explicitly says it is only for business owners signed in to Awning, and clarifies that it replaces weekly hours rather than merging or adding. It does not explicitly name alternatives like owner_get_schedule or owner_block_time, but the scope restriction and replace semantics give clear context for when to use it.

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