create_on_call_override

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is a helpful prerequisite. However, it does not describe side effects like conflict handling or what happens on overlapping dates, and openWorldHint=true suggests additional fields might be accepted without explanation.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a crucial prerequisite. No wasted words.

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?

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description does not mention what is returned (e.g., the sys_id of the created override) or any validation caveats. Given the openWorld hint and nested 'fields' object, an agent might need more guidance on expected behavior when conflicting overrides exist. The prerequisite is helpful but not sufficient for full confidence.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema. Per the calibration, baseline 3 applies when schema covers parameters fully.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('on-call coverage override'), and the scope ('for a date range'), and even includes the underlying table name ('cmn_rota_override'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rota_schedule or add_roster_member, which serve different purposes.

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 states a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_rota_schedule or list_rotas. It implies usage context through the verb and resource, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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