add_center_closure

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains that existing schedule entries produce warnings and require confirmation, and explicitly states 'without deleting data,' representing non-destructive sentiment. It however does not disclose whether the date is overwritten, any idempotence, or broader write-behavior semantics. There is no annotation 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?

One sentence with 26 words, entirely informative, no filler, efficient.

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?

The tool is a simple two-parameter write operation. Description includes warning behavior when entries exist and non-destructive semantics. However, there is no mention of return symbols, no output schema, no form of the added date, and no higher-level workflow of existing schedules. The description covers a basic but unqualified enough scenario, but in the context of a schedule and center domain, it is adequate only.

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?

The schema contains two parameters (date string required, label string optional); but schema description coverage is 0%. The description 'Add a center-specific closure date' just 'echoes the 'date' parameter, and 'label' is not explained at all. It becomes the burden of the schema which remains insufficient.

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?

Description states a specific action: 'Add a center-specific closure date.' It also mentions a distinguishing condition: if schedule entries exist, it returns warnings and requires confirmation. The verb 'add' distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_center_closures' and 'clear_schedule_slot', although no explicit alternative is named.

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?

Usage context is implied by the condition about existing schedule entries and by the contrast with sibling tools like 'remove_center_closure' and 'set_schedule_slot', but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are stated. It is clear the action is generally for adding a closure date.

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