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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds real value by revealing that Deputy's update is the add call with the shift id, which explains why the full payload is required and implies omitted fields are overwritten. It still does not spell out consequences for unspecified fields or that publish can notify the employee (that fact lives in the 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?

Three short sentences, with the purpose and the payload requirement front-loaded. The trailing endpoint note ('Deputy: POST /api/v1/supervise/roster with intRosterId') is largely implementation detail that does not help tool selection, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers purpose, required-field expectations and replace semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. It could still be explicit that unspecified fields are reset and note any permission requirements.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters with formats, defaults and ranges. The description only restates the field categories (times, area, employee, break, comment) and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('Change an existing shift') and enumerates the mutable fields (times, area, employee, break, comment). The word 'existing' implicitly separates it from deputy_create_shift, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 actionable usage context: 'Send the full intended shift (same fields as create)' tells the agent this is a replace-style payload, not a partial patch. No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling routing (e.g., publish_shifts), 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.