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

The description discloses two behaviors not covered by annotations: that this is a partial update where unsent fields are preserved, and that the response echoes the value as it now stands. Annotations only tell us it is a non-destructive write; the partial-update semantics are the genuinely valuable addition.

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?

Two compact clauses with the mutation scope front-loaded and the prerequisite and return behavior trailing. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key unknowns an agent needs: partial-update behavior, prior read step, and return semantics. It stops short of describing what happens on overlapping seasons or invalid ids, so it is not exhaustive.

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 56% and the description adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema already states (ids sourced from list_boats and get_pricing). Moderate coverage with no compensating detail lands at the baseline.

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 ('Change a direct season price') and adds the crucial PATCH-style scope note that 'only the fields sent change'. It implicitly separates itself from add_price/delete_price/update_fee, but never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow prerequisite: read the current value with the corresponding read tool (get_pricing) before calling. It does not state when to prefer update_discount or update_fee over this tool, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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