speechwire_update_judge_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully reveals the key behavior: it replaces all current availability slots, not adding or merging. It also documents the return value structure. While it could mention prerequisites like judge existence, it provides essential behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, a brief list of parameters with explanations, and a return value description. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it does, parameter meanings, and return format. It lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites, but overall is adequately complete for an update tool.

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 compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed parameter explanations: 'judge_id' is the ID of the judge, and 'available_slots' are provider slot IDs from 'speechwire_list_timeslots'. This adds critical context beyond type information.

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 explicitly states 'Replace a judge's availability slots while preserving other values,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'speechwire_get_judge_availability' (read) and other update tools (email, school).

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when to prefer this over other update tools or when not to use it. Usage is implied by context but lacks explicit guidance.

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