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

The annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes much further. It discloses that original dates are released, the original price no longer applies, the booking is updated in place and never recreated, and the price difference is charged or refunded via Stripe. It also notes rate limiting and the need for a guest token even with a valid Bearer token. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 long, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage conditions, destructive consequences, authentication caveat, and parameter workflow are all covered. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then deepens into operational detail. It could be slightly tighter, but the density is justifiable for a destructive write operation.

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 tool with 5 parameters, destructive side effects, dual-auth requirements (Bearer + guestToken), and Stripe financial impact, the description covers all essential decision points: when to use, when to avoid, prerequisites, behavioral consequences, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Nothing critical is 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions are already detailed, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the re-pricing model ('the new night count re-prices the stay exactly like a fresh quote') and the relationship between reservationId and the new stay parameters. This elevates it slightly above 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Reschedule a confirmed or pending booking to new dates with automatic repricing and Stripe charge/refund.' It clearly names the action, target resource, and side effects. It also distinguishes itself from the cancel sibling, so an agent can tell which tool to use without inspecting other definitions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the guest wants to change dates on an existing booking'), when not to use it ('if cancelled or if a protocol compatibility client reports completed'), and names the alternative (hemmabo_booking_cancel) for the different use case. It also instructs the agent to check hemmabo_booking_status first, which is clear operational guidance.

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