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

Annotations declare a non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description adds real context beyond them: an owner sign-in requirement and the fact that several steps (rooms, ooo, people, bookings) are confirm-only rather than value-bearing. It stops short of saying whether values replace or merge existing state, or what an error looks like.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the step catalogue is packed into a single dense line with separators, so nothing is wasted. The density slightly hurts scanability, but every clause carries information the schema does not.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the auth prerequisite and the full per-step payload shape, which is most of what an agent needs. Gaps remain around return value, idempotency of confirmations, and ordering relative to submit_facts.

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 only 50% and the 'values' property just says 'see the description', so the description carries the burden and does: it maps every enum value of step to its expected fields and formats (percentages, HH:MM, CODE-keyed maps). That is exactly the meaning an agent needs to construct a valid values object.

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 ('Confirms or changes one setup step') and enumerates the exact step domains it operates on, so an agent knows this is the per-step write path in the setup flow. It never names the obvious sibling submit_facts or setup_status, so differentiation from siblings must be inferred.

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 is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is called once per setup step, and the prerequisite 'Needs the owner's sign-in' gives a useful gate. There is no explicit when-to-use versus submit_facts or setup_status, and no statement of what happens if a step is called out of order or twice.

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