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

With destructiveHint=true already signaling mutation, the description adds that publishing makes shifts visible and that only listed ids are affected. The notification mode mapping duplicates the schema exactly, so the extra behavioral value is limited to the visibility effect and scoping.

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 and effect, then provides the notification mapping and scoping constraint. It is appropriately sized, though the trailing API endpoint is slightly extraneous for an agent-facing tool.

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?

Covers the essential mutation behavior, the scope of affected shifts, and notification choices. Missing permissions or failure conditions, but with destructiveHint covering risk and no output schema needed, it is largely complete 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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the notify_mode mapping verbatim and clarifies that only the listed shift_ids are published, adding minor scoping meaning but no syntax or format beyond the schema.

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 (publish) and resource (draft shifts) plus the effect (employees see them). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_shift, update_shift, and list_shifts without needing their schemas.

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 context 'Publish draft shifts so employees see them' implies when to use it, and 'Only the listed shift ids are published' gives a scoping constraint. However, it never explicitly names when not to use it or compares it to alternatives like update_shift.

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