passgage_create_shift

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

With no annotations and a description that only restates the action, there is zero disclosure of behavioral traits such as permissions, side effects, uniqueness constraints, or what happens on success. The description fails to provide any context beyond what the tool name implies.

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, concise sentence with no filler. However, given the opaque 'data' object and lack of any other documentation, it is too terse to be genuinely useful. It earns a mid score for brevity but loses points for under-specification.

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?

The tool has a complex nested object parameter and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about the structure of the shift data, required fields, or expected response. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a real scenario.

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 has one parameter 'data' described as 'The data for creating the shift', but this is vague and offers no field-level information. The tool description adds no further meaning, leaving the agent without any clue about what properties are required to define a shift. Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description quality is insufficient.

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 'Create a new shift' uses a specific verb and resource, making it clear that this tool creates a shift entity. It distinguishes itself from sibling create tools by naming the resource, though it lacks additional scope or context about what a shift is.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether to use this for creating new shifts as opposed to updating or listing, nor does it provide prerequisite conditions or context about the shift lifecycle.

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