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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it emails a booking change confirmation and updated voucher, it reaches other people so the user must confirm, confirmation is on by default but toggleable, and it needs a Cotlet API key with app access. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the key eligibility constraint early. However, the opening two sentences are redundant ('Change the participation date or contact info' vs 'Changes the participation date, the traveler contact info or both'), and the confirmation/API-key sentences read as boilerplate, costing some efficiency.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects (emails sent), eligibility limits, auth needs, and confirmation requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be 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 description coverage is 100%, so both date and contact are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning by clarifying that date, contact, or both can change, without extra syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Change/Amend) and resource (participation date or contact info of a booking), and names the fields affected. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like klook_cancel_booking or klook_get_booking without opening the schema.

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 it applies (bookings where Klook offers Amend booking) and when it does not (No cancellation or Conditional cancellation policies, vouchers whose codes do not begin with KLK). This is a clear when/when-not statement with concrete preconditions.

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