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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: atomic all-or-nothing semantics, the exact visit states that block the write, shop-ownership validation, overlap detection, error surfacing via conflicts, required role (owner or office), and the side effect of re-planning appointment reminders.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and batch scope, followed by failure conditions and escape hatches. Dense but each clause earns its place; the middle sentence is long and could be split for scannability.

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, and the description still notes that problems come back in conflicts. For a destructive batch mutation with no annotations, it discloses authorization, limits, atomicity, validation rules and side effects — nothing critical 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it defines all four parameters in prose: changes (new times, optional workers, 100-visit cap), shop_id via 'not this shop's', allow_overlaps, and dry_run. It stops short of describing item-level field expectations already covered by the schema's required list.

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 plus resource: writing a planned route back with new times and optionally new workers, in batch (up to 100 visits, owner or office). An agent can distinguish this batch-apply operation from single-visit tools like visits_update 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?

Gives clear in-tool alternatives: pass allow_overlaps to force, or dry_run to validate without saving, and explains the preconditions under which the write is rejected. It does not point to a sibling tool for editing a single visit or for re-planning a route, so routing between tools is only implied.

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