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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial full-replacement semantics (you must resend the entire shift, so omitted fields are effectively reset) and that update maps onto the add call. It does not cover auth requirements or any confirmation/precondition behavior beyond that.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the replacement rule comes first and the implementation detail (POST /api/v1/supervise/roster with intRosterId) trails it. The endpoint detail is arguably extra but is short and useful for a Deputy-specific 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?

For a destructive mutation with destructiveHint already declared, 100% parameter documentation and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing an agent most needs: that this is a full-payload replacement, not a partial patch.

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 the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by grouping the mutable fields and emphasizing that the whole payload must be supplied, which changes how the 11 parameters are meant to be used rather than merely restating 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Change an existing shift's') with an enumeration of what may change (times, area, employee, break, comment). It also implicitly separates itself from deputy_create_shift by noting the update uses the same field set as create plus the shift id.

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 a concrete invocation rule: 'Send the full intended shift (same fields as create)' and clarifies the underlying call is the add endpoint plus shift id. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or name sibling alternatives such as deputy_create_shift or deputy_publish_shifts for publishing-only changes.

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