Create availability

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the limited flag semantics, sport_types list meaning, and the returned availability_id. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then key nuances. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is sufficiently complete for a create operation: it explains the main behavior, the limited/sport_types interaction, and the return value (in the absence of an output schema). It does not cover edge cases like overlapping availability, but that is not necessary for basic usage.

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 high (83%), but the description compensates for the undocumented 'limited' parameter by explaining its boolean behavior and the role of sport_types. It also clarifies the output (availability_id) which the schema does not.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a date range as unavailable for training (or limited to certain sports).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like tp_delete_availability and tp_get_availability by stating the create action and returning an availability_id.

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 context is clear: this tool creates availability entries, and the mention of 'needed for tp_delete_availability' provides lifecycle context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident among siblings.

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