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

The destructiveHint=true annotation only tells the agent this mutates state; the description adds the genuinely useful defaults (draft vs. published, open vs. assigned) and the undo route. It does not disclose permission requirements or what happens on validation failure, but it exceeds the annotation's information.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then the variant, then the default state, then remediation. No filler and nothing buried.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers creation mode, default state, and undo, but says nothing about the returned object or how to obtain the new shift's id for follow-up edits. Adequate but with a real gap.

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 restates the user_id 0 = open-shift convention and the published default, which the schema already documents, adding little new parameter meaning.

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 ('Create one shift on a schedule') and immediately disambiguates the two creation modes: assigned to a user vs. open (user_id 0). It is clearly distinct from update_shift / publish_shifts in intent, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 context: the record is a draft unless published is true, and the reversal path is 'editing it or unpublishing' — which points the agent at when to use update_shift / unpublish_shifts. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' statement.

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