cigchat_shop_business_hours_update

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the PUT method, the required 'Manage Team' scope, and detailed parameter constraints including conditional requirements and value ranges. However, it does not clarify whether the update replaces existing hours or merges with them, nor does it describe response behavior or side effects.

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 run-on sentence with comma-separated fields, making it hard to parse. It front-loads the purpose but then dumps all parameter rules without any structural organization, reducing readability.

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 description covers many constraints (enumerations, time ranges, conditional requirements) and mentions authentication, but it omits the actual request structure (the 'data' array wrapper) and the semantics behind option values. There is no output schema, and the description does not discuss return values or failure scenarios, leaving the tool incomplete in context.

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?

The description adds significant value by listing allowed values for id, name, option, and time ranges, plus conditional requirements for start/end fields. However, it presents these as flat parameters while the actual schema requires a 'data' array containing objects, which is a critical mismatch that could lead to invalid invocation. The meanings of 'open' vs 'close' are also left unexplained.

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 'Update store business hours,' identifying the action and resource directly. It does not explicitly differentiate from the related read tool 'cigchat_shop_business_hours_info' or other update tools, but the verb and resource are specific enough to convey the core purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using the info tool for retrieving current hours. The verb 'Update' implies modification, but there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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