Update On Call Shadow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether this is a partial or full replacement of attributes, what happens to omitted fields, or that data.type must be "on_call_shadows" while data.id is ignored. For a mutation with a nested payload, that silence is a real gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so nothing needs trimming. However, it is under-specified rather than concise: the same length budget could have carried the mutation semantics and field scope.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a nested-payload update tool the description should at least convey that the payload is JSON:API-shaped and which attributes (starts_at, ends_at, schedule_id, shadow_user_id, shadowable_id/type) can be changed; none of that appears.

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 sits at 50% with a nested `data.attributes` object, and the description contributes nothing beyond the phrase "by id," which the schema's own id description already explains in more detail (including that there is no `on_call_shadow_id` alias). No indication of what `data` means semantically or that unknown attributes are rejected (additionalProperties: false).

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 and resource ("Update a specific on call shadow configuration by id"), so the agent knows this is a mutation targeting one existing shadow resource. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_on_call_shadow, list_on_call_shadows, or create_on_call_shadow, and says nothing about which fields are updatable.

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 get_on_call_shadow or list_on_call_shadows, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing shadow id). "By id" implies an id is required, but the schema already says that via the required array.

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