Remove time off

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, the description adds useful context: it deletes exactly one off-… or block-… item and 'reaches no client.' That no-client-reach detail is meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations. It does not cover permissions or undo behavior, but the annotations carry much of that burden.

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-loads the effect ('so the time can be booked again'), then specifies the deleted object types and the no-client-reach behavior. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 destructive mutation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description gives enough behavioral context: what is deleted, which ID types are supported, and that no client is reached. It does not explain failure modes or whether the operation returns anything, but no output schema exists and the annotations already flag destructiveness and non-idempotence.

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 both staff_id and time_off_id are already documented in the input schema. The description restates the accepted ID forms (off-… or block-…) but does not add syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema. This is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: removing one time off or one calendar block. It also clarifies scope with the ID prefixes (off-… / block-…) and distinguishes behavior from client-facing actions via 'It reaches no client.' An agent can tell this is a deletion of a time-off/block object, not an appointment cancellation.

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 phrase 'so the time can be booked again' implies the use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_time_off or add_time_off. The schema mentions that the ID comes from add_time_off or list_time_off, but that guidance is not in the description itself.

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