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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true and a title, so the description does the heavy lifting. It discloses the draft-by-default lifecycle, that publishing can notify the employee, and critically that Deputy returns an empty 200 with no id, directing the agent to deputy_list_shifts. This is exactly the behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 tight sentences: what it does, the default lifecycle and side effect, then the surprising response behavior. No wasted words and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by explaining the empty 200 response and the follow-up call to obtain the id. Combined with the draft/publish and notification details, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented, and the description largely restates what the schema says (open vs. employee_id, publish default). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a shift to the roster') with the scope that it may be filled or open. It distinguishes itself implicitly from deputy_update_shift through 'Add', but does not explicitly name that sibling the way it names deputy_list_shifts.

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 clear operational context: created as a DRAFT unless publish is true, and directs the agent to deputy_list_shifts to retrieve the new id. It does not state explicit when-not conditions (e.g., when to use update_shift instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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