update_leave_period

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the mutation semantics (shifting edges, shortening, half-day conversion) but says nothing about the side effect of clearing existing declarations or about validation/conflict behavior on overlapping periods.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the verb, and three concrete mutation patterns with zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and rich annotations, the only real gap is that the destructive sub-action (delete_declarations wiping existing declarations) and the effect of omitted optional fields are not surfaced in prose. For an update tool this is close to complete but leaves one behaviorally significant detail to the schema.

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 every parameter is already documented in structured form and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces start_at/end_at/start_type/end_type semantics via 'move it, shorten it, half day', but adds nothing about description or delete_declarations beyond what the schema states.

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-resource pair (change a leave period) and enumerates concrete operations: move, shorten, convert full day to half day. The verb 'change' implicitly separates it from create_leave_period and delete_leave_period siblings, though those alternatives are never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required 'id' and the word 'change' signal this operates on an existing leave period rather than creating one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of reading the period first with get_leave_period, and no pointer to delete_leave_period for removal.

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