Delete a shift

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

Annotations already mark destructive/write. The description adds the specific gate (operator write opt-in + confirm:true) and concrete side effects ('may notify recipients or change tenant data'), which are not present in the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Compact presentation front-loads purpose, endpoint, and no-body, then adds auth and side-effect warnings. The reference link is extra but useful; there is no filler.

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, auth-gated delete, the description includes endpoint, body requirement, confirmation gate, and side effects. It does not describe response/status codes, but no output schema exists and the reference URL covers deeper API details, so the core invocation context is complete.

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 covers 67% of properties; query and confirm have schema descriptions, path does not. The description reinforces confirm:true and clarifies the request has no body, and the endpoint template gives path-parameter meaning, but it does not independently explain groupID/shiftID beyond their names.

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 names the action ('Delete a shift') and gives the exact REST endpoint with groupID/shiftID, making the target resource unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling update/shift tools, but the delete verb and endpoint are sufficient to identify the operation.

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 statement of when to use this versus update/create/get shift tools; the agent must infer from operation name. It gives prerequisites (write opt-in, confirm:true) but not selection criteria relative to alternatives.

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