create-out-of-office

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation intent and gives no information about side effects, prerequisites, redirect-to-user behavior, conflict handling, or return value. It does not contradict any annotations, but it adds little behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity leaves gaps in usage and behavioral context that other dimensions capture.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, this one-line description is not complete enough. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether creating an OOO replaces an existing one, or any conditions around booking redirection via toUserId. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is thin for a mutation 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 input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, including ISO 8601 formats and the meaning of toUserId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('out-of-office entry'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like list-out-of-office and delete-out-of-office.

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?

Usage is implied by the action and resource name: an agent can tell this is for creating out-of-office entries. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention alternatives such as create-schedule or list-out-of-office.

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