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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds two useful behavioral facts: updates are partial (only supplied fields change) and reducing seats below occupancy is allowed, leaving the table over capacity. It does not elaborate on destructive consequences such as what happens to already-seated guests, but the annotations already signal destructiveness.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core action, then immediately clarify partial-update semantics and the over-capacity rule. No sentence is wasted.

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 five-parameter update tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly: which fields can change, that updates are partial, and that over-capacity tables are permitted. Minor gaps remain around guest handling and table_id meaning, but the schema covers the latter.

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 40%, so the description should compensate. It names the updatable fields (name, notes, seats, shape) and explains seat behavior, but it omits the required table_id and does not add format or constraint detail. It partially compensates but leaves gaps for undocumented parameters.

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: renaming a seating-plan table or changing its seats, shape, or notes. This clearly distinguishes it from update tools for other entities, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like add-seating-table or delete-seating-table.

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 implies this tool modifies an existing table and clarifies that only passed fields change, but it never states when to use this versus add-seating-table or delete-seating-table. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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