Create Schedule Rotation Active Day

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive write. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say what happens if an active day already exists for that rotation/day_name (notably relevant given idempotentHint=false), whether permissions are required, or what the created resource returns.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, so it is not bloated. However, 'from provided data' is dead weight in an already minimal sentence, leaving the whole sentence with essentially one clause of content.

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?

This is a mutating tool with nested objects and an output schema, so the schema side is fine, but the description is incomplete: it does not explain the relationship to the parent rotation, duplicate-day behavior, or when to create versus update an active day. For a creation tool in a complex scheduling domain, that leaves meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 50%, so the description is expected to compensate, yet it only says 'from provided data' — zero information about schedule_rotation_id or the nested day_name/active_time_attributes payload. The schema itself documents the key fields, so an agent can still call it, but the description contributes no semantic value at all.

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 verb+resource pair ('Creates a new schedule rotation active day') is specific enough to identify the operation, but the trailing 'from provided data' is pure filler and adds nothing. There is no differentiation from nearby siblings such as create_schedule_rotation, create_schedule_rotation_user, or update_schedule_rotation, which an agent must choose between in the same domain.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the rotation must already exist), and no mention of the alternative siblings like create_schedule_rotation_user or list_schedule_rotation_active_days. The agent has to infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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