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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: it replaces earlier approvals, an empty list clears them, invalid keys produce an error listing current options, and the operation is rejected after an organiser decision. These are not visible in the annotations alone and give the agent a realistic model of side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then logically covers replacement, clearing, prerequisites, validation, rejection, and a complete example. Every sentence adds distinct information and the length is appropriate for the tool's semantics.

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?

The description is largely complete, but it does not specify what happens if the optional starts parameter is omitted, even though only slug and identity are required. With no output schema, it also does not describe the success response. These are minor gaps relative to the otherwise thorough guidance.

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 schema already explains slug, identity, starts, and start. The description adds value with a concrete example, explains that 'start' is shorthand for a single-item starts list, and clarifies that identity is the voter identity from submit_availability.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'set every start one person accepts', and the title 'Approve start times' matches. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as approval voting tied to identity and voteOptions from get_event, not creation or decision-making.

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?

It gives strong context: the identity must come from submit_availability and have at least one saved start, keys must be from get_event.voteOptions, and calls are rejected once the organiser decided. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the constraints clearly indicate when and how this tool should be used.

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