Update a shift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it warns that the operation 'may notify recipients or change tenant data,' and it states the requirement for 'operator write opt-in and confirm:true.' This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying side effects and prerequisites, though it does not detail reversibility or the exact scope of tenant changes.

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 information-dense but well-organized: it leads with the core action, then provides the endpoint, clarifications, body field list, reference, and requirements. Each sentence serves a purpose; there is no fluff. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it is appropriately concise for the complexity of the operation.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: the endpoint, the required path parameter (groupID), the body fields, the confirmation requirement, side effects, and a link to full documentation. It also notes the existence of a by-id variant, helping an agent choose correctly. It lacks detailed nested field structures, but that is covered by the reference, and overall the tool is well-specified for correct invocation.

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 75%, and the description compensates by enumerating the body fields (shiftID, name, description, recurrence, members, siteHolidays, timezone, start, end, rotation, repeatEscalation, notifyEndofEscalation, id, notifyEndOfEscalation). It also clarifies the ambiguity between 'id' and 'shiftID' in examples versus the table. This adds meaning beyond the generic body schema description, though it does not detail nested structures for fields like recurrence or members.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Update a shift.' It specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, and explicitly differentiates from the by-id variant by noting the collection path vs. a path-addressed variant that is separately cataloged. This gives an agent an unambiguous understanding of what this tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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 description mentions the existence of a separate path-addressed shift variant ('separately cataloged') but does not provide explicit decision criteria for when to use this tool versus the by-id variant. It also notes the requirement for operator write opt-in and confirm:true, which is a usage prerequisite, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative.

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