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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important upsert behavior (crew_id present = rename/replace) and the 'owner or office' scope, but says nothing about whether replacing person_ids destroys existing assignments, permission requirements, or the 20-person cap that the schema enforces.

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, zero waste, with the core action and the update path front-loaded before the downstream usage hint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves gaps: the required shop_id is undiscussed, replacement destructiveness is unstated, and the 'owner or office' phrasing is ambiguous about who may call it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to name, crew_id and person_ids ('workers'), but shop_id — a required parameter — is never mentioned, and no format or constraint details are added beyond what the schema already conveys.

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+resource ('Save a named crew of workers to book together') and immediately clarifies the create-vs-update semantics via crew_id. An agent can distinguish it from crews_list and crews_archive without opening the 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?

Explicitly says to pass crew_id to rename or replace workers, and routes the agent downstream ('Use the crew_id on visits.create, visits.assign or schedule.findTime'), which is genuinely useful cross-tool guidance. It does not, however, contrast with crews_archive or state prerequisites for creating a new crew.

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