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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: what destruction means here (shifts revert to draft, become hidden from employees) and that it is reversible via wheniwork_publish_shifts, which is valuable for a destructive-flagged op.

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 zero filler: effect first, undo route second, endpoint third. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect, reversibility, and the underlying API operation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with a single, well-described 'ids' array (including min/max items), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about id format, batch limits, or partial-failure behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 observable effect ('hiding them from employees'). It also explicitly names the inverse tool, so an agent can distinguish it from wheniwork_publish_shifts without opening a 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?

Clearly conveys the context of use (reverting published shifts to draft) and names the counterpart tool as the undo path. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites, but the routing signal is present.

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