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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it discloses almost nothing: no permissions/role requirements, no collision handling with existing visits or open slots, no duplicate/idempotency behavior, no indication of what is returned. For a mutation on scheduling data, these omissions matter.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate in structure even though the content is thin.

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 a 5-parameter mutation with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves an agent without enough to call it correctly or predict side effects. Substantially more disclosure is warranted here.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. "Worker" loosely maps to person_id, and the examples loosely map to reason, but shop_id scoping, the starts_at/ends_at date-time format expectations, and the fact that person_id is optional (only 3 of 5 required) are never explained.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Add time off for a worker") with parenthetical examples of the kinds of time off. It is clearly distinguishable from availability_removeTimeOff and availability_setHours by name and description, though the description itself never names those alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus availability_setHours or availability_removeTimeOff, no preconditions (e.g. must the person be a member of shop_id?), and no stated exclusions. Only the parenthetical examples hint at appropriate use.

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