Skip one period

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive finality ('for good'), the billing impact ('reporting what will not be billed'), the refusal of invoiced periods, and the undo reversal behavior. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences, each adding distinct information: scope, validity requirement, and refusal/undo behavior. There is no wasted text.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the definition covers the core contract: what action is performed, how it differs from pausing, when it is refused, how to reverse it, and where to find valid period dates. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, period, and undo thoroughly. The main description adds only the 'period must be a real occurrence' constraint, which is useful but mostly implicit. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource—'Close ONE occurrence for good'—and explicitly distinguishes the action from pausing the schedule. It makes clear this tool targets a single period rather than the whole schedule, so an agent can separate it from schedule_pause.

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 and period parameter explicitly compare schedule_skip with schedule_pause: skip closes one occurrence permanently, while pause stops the whole schedule and a resumed schedule back-bills missed periods. It also gives validity conditions: the period must be a real occurrence, invoiced periods are refused, and undo reopens a skip.

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