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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Change' is consistent with those. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether at least one field must be supplied, or what the response contains.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. It does not explain partial-update semantics, required stay_id, or what happens when multiple fields are updated together, leaving important operational context missing.

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 63%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description summarizes the main editable fields ('city, country, dates or notes') but does not explain checkout_flexible, city_code, or stay_id semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and identifies the resource ('a stop') plus the affected fields (city, country, dates, notes). It is clear enough, though 'stop' does not exactly match the tool name 'stay', and it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling update_* tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_accommodation, update_activity, or update_flight. There is no mention of prerequisites, partial-update behavior, or when not to use it.

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