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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true and a title; the description adds meaningful behavior — default draft state unless published=true, the open-shift option, and the undo path. It does not explain what 'destructive' entails for a create operation or mention permissions, but it adds real context beyond the annotation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by lifecycle and undo detail. No wasted words.

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?

Given 11 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the key lifecycle facts (draft/published, open/assigned, undo). It stops short of describing the return payload or auth needs, but the schema does most of the heavy lifting.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description's notes on user_id 0 (open shift) and published duplicate schema text rather than extending it, so baseline 3 is 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 and resource ('Create one shift on a schedule') and clarifies the two variants (assigned vs open). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_shift, publish_shifts, and unpublish_shifts without opening any schema.

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?

Implies usage context (draft vs published, open vs assigned), and 'Undo by editing it or unpublishing' gestures toward update_shift and unpublish_shifts as alternatives. However, it never states when an agent should prefer publish_shifts at creation time versus publishing later, nor any prerequisites.

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