tp_create_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing availability), permission requirements (coach accounts for athlete), or return values. The phrase 'Mark dates as unavailable or limited' only states the immediate action without revealing operational consequences.

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, tightly worded sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Mark' and conveys the essential purpose without wasting words.

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?

As a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits critical details like how 'limited' differs from 'unavailable', the purpose of sport_types, and any constraints or side effects. The description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 80% (4/5 parameters documented), and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond hinting at the 'limited' boolean. It does not clarify how sport_types relates to limited, nor does it compensate for the missing description of the 'limited' parameter. The baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 'Mark dates as unavailable or limited' clearly conveys the core action of creating availability entries and distinguishes it from retrieval (get_availability) and deletion (delete_availability). However, it could be more explicit about creating a new availability record, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, no mention of alternatives like tp_get_availability or tp_delete_availability, and no context for how it fits into the workflow. It is a single sentence with no directional pointers.

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