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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description adds two pieces of context the annotations cannot: the change is logged and undoable, and it propagates to the AI receptionist and website booking. It does not explain whether unspecified days are left untouched or reset, which is the main remaining behavioral ambiguity for a destructive write.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the parameter examples and the downstream consequence. The day examples are dense but each one earns its place by illustrating the accepted alias format.

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 destructive four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers reversibility and impact but omits the time string format, timezone assumptions, and whether partial day lists replace or merge with existing hours. Those gaps matter for calling it correctly the first time.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does add real value by giving day-alias examples ("weekdays", "sat", "mon","wed") and by tying "or closed" to the closed flag, but the time format for open and close is left completely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: it sets open/close times or a closed flag for selected days, which is distinct from the sibling update_setting and get_settings. It never explicitly names those siblings, so an agent must still infer which settings tool to pick, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through the stated effect ("The AI receptionist and website booking use these hours"), which tells the agent why this matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-instead guidance against update_setting or get_settings. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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