Report a missed pickup

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that without confirm:true it is a dry run that makes no network call, and that with confirm:true it notifies staff. This is key safety behavior not captured by readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no filler. The dry-run caveat is essential and placed at the end, keeping structure efficient.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description covers purpose, notification outcome, and dry-run behavior. It doesn't detail preview contents or the confirmed response, but for a simple report tool this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It repeats the confirm dry-run behavior already present in the confirm property schema.

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 ('Report') plus a clear resource ('scheduled collection') and scope ('missed'), and states the outcome (notifies staff). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crowntown_skip_service by focusing on reporting a missed past collection.

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 when to use (when a scheduled collection was missed) but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like skip_service or contact_support. The dry-run guidance is useful for safe invocation but not for tool selection.

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