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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true). The description adds the operationally important side effects: the default is an unpublished draft employees cannot see, publishing triggers user notifications unless notify_users=false, and the 'title or job_id' server-side requirement. This is context the agent cannot derive from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the WRITE marker and single-shift scope, then layers defaults, required-field rule, and open-shift recipe in tight sentences. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint; the trailing endpoint reference is the only near-redundant element.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this covers defaults, publication behavior, notification behavior, and the assignee/open-shift fork adequately. It does not indicate what the call returns (e.g. the new shift id) or how to retrieve it afterward, which is a minor gap for a create operation.

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 3 is the floor, but the description adds cross-parameter constraints the schema states only in scattered property notes: the title/job_id either-or requirement and the coupled is_open_shift + empty assigned_user_ids rule. Useful consolidation, though largely duplicative of existing field 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('WRITE: create ONE shift in a scheduler') and immediately bounds the scope by stating the V1 endpoint cannot create group or multi-spot shifts. An agent can distinguish this from connecteam_list_shifts and connecteam_get_shift without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: set is_published=true to publish, leave assigned_user_ids empty plus is_open_shift=true for an open shift, and supply either a title or job_id. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the unsupported group/multi-spot case, so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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