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

Far exceeds what the annotations carry (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It discloses the full lifecycle: guest accepts and the change applies at once; decline or two-business-day silence leaves the original booking intact; price must be set manually; 8+ hour discounts do not apply; the call reaches other people and needs confirmation.

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 action and outcome before the constraints, and nearly every sentence carries operational value. It is dense and runs long, but the length is largely earned rather than padding.

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, recipient behavior, success/failure outcomes, timing window, and pricing side effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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%, so the baseline is a 3, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates the changeable fields and warns that the new price must be supplied manually rather than recalculated. It does not document the exact syntax of the 'fields' string 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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: 'Ask the guest to approve a new date, time, attendee count or price' on a confirmed booking. An agent can immediately distinguish this from peerspace_accept_booking_request, decline_booking_request, or send_custom_offer without opening any 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?

Gives a clear condition ('up to 1 hour before start', 'on a confirmed booking') and a required prerequisite action ('confirm with the user before each call'). It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives for changing a booking, so it stops short of a 5.

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