create_rota_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is a useful operational constraint not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens on creation (e.g., whether the rotation is immediately active, any side effects, or if it returns the created record). It adds some value but leaves behavioral details uncovered.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key prerequisite. It contains no filler and is appropriately brief for a tool with a clear purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 a nested object parameter (fields) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the 'fields' object should contain, what the tool returns, or how the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite is satisfied. The absence of output schema and nested object details means an agent would need to guess or inspect the schema more deeply. The description leaves significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about parameters, such as clarifying the structure of the 'fields' object or acceptable time_zone formats beyond the example. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and a precise resource ('an on-call rotation (cmn_rota) for a group'). It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_rotas (list) and add_roster_member (add a member). The inclusion of the table name (cmn_rota) adds precision.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a prerequisite ('Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') but does not explain when to prefer this over create_on_call_override or list_rotas, nor when not to use it. An agent has to infer usage context from the tool name and schema.

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