Adopt holidays

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the exact blast radius: whole-year replacement, hand-entered company holidays in that year are lost, years without source data are untouched. It also states what the response contains (days removed and created per year) and the transactional precondition.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then behavior, then the guard parameter, then the return, then the precondition. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 destructive, nested-schema, open-world operation this is complete: annotations cover safety, the output schema covers return shape, and the description covers destruction scope, guard behavior, and the transaction requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics for 'years' by framing it as the sole protection against the whole-year overwrite. It does not add syntax details (array vs {from,to}) beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('adopts the holidays of a source calendar into a pool calendar'), which is unambiguous against siblings like rillsoft_calendar_source_get (read) or rillsoft_calendar_create (create). An agent can identify this as the bulk-import operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('Inside an open unit of work only') and identifies 'years' as the only guard against the overwrite, which tells the agent how to use the tool safely. It does not, however, name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it.

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