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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that the override is temporary ('temporarily changes who is on call'), which is useful beyond the annotation. It does not contradict the annotation and provides additional behavioral context.

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, front-loading the primary purpose. It includes an API endpoint reference without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and key parameter guidance. It could mention that the override is applied immediately, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds meaning by highlighting 'type' as free-form and advising to confirm valid values, which complements the schema. For other parameters, the schema already provides clear 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 clearly states 'Creates an on-call override' with the verb 'creates' and resource 'on-call override'. It adds context 'temporarily changes who is on call', making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like list/who-is-on-call.

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 mentions the override applies to the 'LIVE account' and advises to confirm valid 'type' values, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating an existing override) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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