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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond the annotations: the operation is permanent ('for good'), irreversible only via undo, refused on invoiced periods, and reports what will not be billed. It does not detail response format or edge cases, but the core mutation semantics are clearly conveyed.

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 short and front-loads the most important fact. The sentence 'period must be a real occurrence of it' is slightly awkward and could more clearly say 'of the schedule,' but overall every sentence contributes meaning and the text is not bloated.

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 essential invocation conditions: required parameters, exact period format, invoiced-period restriction, and undo semantics. It does not describe the exact return payload, but the phrase 'reporting what will not be billed' gives a reasonable expectation 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%, and the parameter descriptions are thorough: id accepts a schedule id or client name, period requires a YYYY-MM-DD date appearing in schedule_upcoming or forecast, and undo is explained. The description adds reasonable context without needing to repeat every schema detail.

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 action ('Close ONE occurrence for good'), the resource (a schedule period), and the key effect (not pausing the schedule). It also distinguishes itself from schedule_pause by saying it skips one occurrence rather than stopping the whole schedule.

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 contrasts this tool with schedule_pause, explaining that pausing stops the whole schedule and back-bills missed periods, while skipping closes one period for good. It also states the invoiced-period refusal and the undo behavior, giving clear conditions for correct use.

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