Save Staffing Plan

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

Goes well beyond annotations by stating the server recomputes rates, totals, lead time, and compliance; does not accept client-supplied pricing; does not reserve staff, submit contact details, or request a quote; and saves for 30 days. The status hints also disclose how different outcomes behave without contradicting 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then states when/not to call, then summarizes behavior, and ends with structured hint branching. Every major sentence earns its place, and the hints are organized in a readable conditional style despite their density.

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 an existing output schema, the description still covers the necessary context: prerequisite conditions, persistence, exclusion of alternatives, server-side behavior, and handling of all possible return statuses. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to call this 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds useful integration context, such as submitting the same confirmed values and the server not accepting pricing or totals, but it does not materially deepen per-field semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: explicitly save a complete non-contact staffing plan for 30 days with persistence. It clearly distinguishes itself from plan_staffing by saying it is used only when plan_staffing returned plan_complete:true without a plan_id, and it also distinguishes from request_quote by noting it does not request a quote.

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 an explicit condition for use ('only when plan_staffing returned plan_complete:true without a plan_id and the user needs persistence') and an explicit exclusion ('Never call this tool when plan_staffing already returned a plan_id'). It also provides alternative routing information via status hints, including when request_quote is not appropriate.

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