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

destructiveHint=true already flags the mutation; the description adds real substance by explaining the resulting state (published → draft) and the employee-visible effect of hiding shifts, plus the reversal tool. It still omits whether notifications go out or whether unpublished shifts block scheduling, so it is not fully transparent.

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 compact sentences plus an endpoint reference, with the outcome and the undo path front-loaded. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 single-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the definition covers the effect, the visibility change, and the inverse operation. Remaining gaps (side effects like notifications, partial-failure behavior on batches up to 1000 ids) are minor but not negligible.

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?

Only one parameter ('ids') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no cardinality, batching, or limit guidance beyond what the schema states, 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 ('Return published shifts to draft') plus the user-visible consequence ('hiding them from employees'). It is immediately distinguishable from its sibling wheniwork_publish_shifts, which it explicitly names as the inverse.

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?

Names the alternative and the recovery path ('Undo with wheniwork_publish_shifts'), giving clear context for when to reach for it. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions (e.g. don't unpublish shifts already worked or locked), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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