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

The description aligns with the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, and adds useful selection behavior beyond them: the visit is identified by lounge_slug and disambiguated with visited_at. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not detail side effects like overwriting prior content.

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 focused sentences with no filler; the core update purpose and fields are front-loaded, and the disambiguation instruction earns its place. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 simple mutation tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the main call requirements: which fields can change, how to identify the visit, and how to handle duplicates. It does not describe error cases or response behavior, but those are not essential given the schema coverage and simple nature of the operation.

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 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter including the disambiguation role of visited_at and the meaning of new_visited_at. The description mostly restates this, adding no significant parameter-level value beyond the schema.

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-resource pair ('Update one of your logged lounge visits') and explicitly lists the mutable fields (rating, notes, date). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like update_review or mark_lounge_visited.

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 clearly states the context: updating an existing logged visit for the current user, and gives a concrete disambiguation rule when multiple visits to the same lounge exist. It does not explicitly call out alternatives like update_review, but the resource type makes the intended use sufficiently clear.

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