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

Annotations already cover the write/destructive/non-idempotent/open-world profile, so the bar is lower, and the description earns credit by disclosing a side effect not in the annotations: the employee is notified only when notify is true. It also names the underlying endpoint (POST /rosters), which is useful operational context.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' signal and the core semantics, with the endpoint appended as a compact epilogue. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the notification side effect, and the endpoint, while annotations supply the safety and idempotency profile. It stops short of noting auth/permission requirements or what the response returns, which would round it out.

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 cross-references (e.g. shiftbase_list_shift_types). The description only restates the key fields at a high level and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('put one employee on the schedule'), the exact cardinality ('one employee... one date', 'a single, non-recurring shift'), and the resource (roster). It distinguishes itself from the sibling shiftbase_update_roster by explicitly scoping to creation of a non-recurring shift rather than modification.

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 'WRITE:' prefix and 'single, non-recurring shift' phrasing imply this is the creation path versus shiftbase_update_roster, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is stated. An agent can infer intent but gets no explicit routing guidance.

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