plu_add_unavailability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, but omits details on whether overlaps are allowed, whether it replaces existing data, or what the return value is.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The critical usage instruction is front-loaded after the action statement.

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?

Adequate for a simple add operation: it states the action and a key usage requirement. Lacks details on behavioral aspects like conflict handling or output format, but given the tool's simplicity, it meets minimal viability.

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?

Description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. The schema already describes startDate and endDate formats; propertyId has no description and the tool description does not clarify it. With 67% schema coverage, the description compensates poorly.

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 'Add an unavailability period,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like plu_add_availability (adds availability) and plu_delete_unavailability (removes unavailability).

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 instruction 'IMPORTANT: ask user confirmation' provides a clear usage guideline, implying the need for caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites.

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