plu_add_availability

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. 'Ask user confirmation' is a useful behavioral note, but other critical behaviors (e.g., idempotency, side effects, required permissions) are omitted. The description is insufficient for an agent to assess safety.

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 (two short phrases), but conciseness sacrifices clarity. The second phrase 'Ask user confirmation' seems like a usage instruction rather than a description of the tool's function. Better structure would separate usage notes from core purpose.

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 7 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the boolean parameters, expected return value, or how to format dates. An agent cannot use this tool effectively without external documentation.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 7 parameters. The agent receives no explanation for propertyId, startDate, endDate, or the boolean flags (sim, non_sim, etc.), leaving them completely opaque.

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 'Add availability period', which is a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'plu_add_unavailability' beyond the name. The description lacks specificity about what 'availability' means in this domain.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'Ask user confirmation', which implies a usage step but does not specify scenarios or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'plu_add_unavailability' are not mentioned.

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