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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not explain whether setting availability overwrites existing windows or appends. The merge behavior when combining recurring and date entries is not disclosed, which is a gap despite annotations providing a safety profile.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and resource identifier, then providing usage strategy with no wasted words.

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?

Given 7 parameters and complex interactions, the description is adequate but lacks explanation of mutual exclusivity between dayOfWeek and date, and the default value of isRecurring. Output schema exists, so returned values need not be detailed, but edge cases are underexplained.

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%, but the description adds semantic value by explaining the mental model of using dayOfWeek+isRecurring versus date. It hints at mutual exclusivity, though it could be more explicit about the behavior when both are provided.

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 clearly states 'Add an availability window for a staff member', specifying the verb, resource, and target (companyMembers.id). It distinguishes between recurring weekly schedules (dayOfWeek + recurring) and one-off changes (specific date), differentiating it from sibling tool 'set_resource_availability'.

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 tells when to use dayOfWeek+recurring for weekly schedules and a specific date for one-off changes, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools for removing availability.

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