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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds real value by disclosing the employee-facing side effects (visibility, SMS/email notification, confirmation-required mode) that annotations don't convey. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether publishing can be undone.

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?

Effect and notification options are front-loaded in one dense sentence, with the scope limit following immediately. The trailing REST endpoint is extraneous for an agent but cheap and non-disruptive.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, its scope, and its notification behaviors adequately. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid/already-published ids, reversibility) for full marks.

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 description's enumeration of notify_mode values is essentially a restatement of the schema's own description, so no new semantic depth is added. The note that only listed ids are published is a mild constraint clarification, but the baseline 3 applies.

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 consequence (employees see them), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like deputy_create_shift and deputy_update_shift. The endpoint detail reinforces the operation.

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?

It implies the tool applies to draft shifts and scopes the effect with 'Only the listed shift ids are published', which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over updating/creating shifts, nor whether publishing is reversible or what happens to already-published ids.

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