gerent365_assign_shift

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses support for split shifts, breaks, and day off, but it does not explain update behavior (e.g., whether it replaces the entire shift), the effect of isOff on time fields, or any required permissions. The description reads as a feature list rather than a behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the primary action and key features in under 20 words. Every clause adds information without fluff.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a clear high-level overview. However, it omits operational details such as how isOff interacts with time fields, the role of absenceType, and what happens when assigning to a day with an existing shift, leaving gaps for a complex tool.

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?

The schema covers all 11 parameters, meeting the >80% coverage baseline of 3. The description adds value by grouping startTime2/endTime2 as 'jornada partida' and breakStart/breakEnd as breaks, and by highlighting isOff as a day-off flag, clarifying relationships between parameters beyond individual schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action with specific verb 'Asigna o actualiza' (assigns or updates) and identifies the resource as employee shifts ('turno de un empleado en un día'). It also highlights key capabilities (split shifts, breaks, day off) that distinguish it from schedule-viewing tools like gerent365_get_schedule.

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?

The description implies usage for creating or updating employee shifts but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as gerent365_get_schedule or gerent365_copy_week. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it, so guidance is only implied.

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