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

Beyond the annotations it discloses deferred activation ('on the next app/MCP access'), default state ('Off by default'), scope ('whole ledger'), and non-retroactivity ('do not undo previous completions'), plus the owner-only authorization requirement. That is substantial context an agent cannot get from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Short declarative sentences, authorization and precondition front-loaded, and every sentence adds a fact (scope, default, timing, non-retroactivity) rather than restating the title.

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 a single required boolean, rich annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers nearly everything needed to call it safely. It does not say what the response returns or how to confirm the new state took effect, which is a minor but real gap for a mutation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden; it explains that the boolean toggles automatic booked-to-completed conversion and that the default is off, which gives the flag real domain meaning. It never names the parameter or states explicitly what true vs. false produce, so it stops just short of full coverage.

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 pair (enable/disable) against a precisely defined setting: automatic booked-to-completed conversion after arrival. No sibling tool in the list covers journey preference settings, so the risk of confusion is negligible.

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?

It states a hard precondition: 'Only call after the owner explicitly requests this preference change,' plus an 'Owner only' restriction. No alternative tool exists for this action, so there is nothing to route against, but the when-to-use gate is explicit.

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