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

Far exceeds the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). It discloses that a two-way PMS/RMS/CRS overwrites stop sells, that calls are confirmed by default but can be switched off, that it reaches other people requiring user confirmation, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is needed. This is rich mutation/auth/interop context the annotations do not carry.

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 effect, and every sentence adds operational value (scoping, undo, overwrite caveat, confirmation, auth). It is dense and slightly long, but there is little filler to trim.

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 the scope of the write, its reversibility, downstream overwrites, the confirmation requirement, and auth needs. 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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantics beyond the schema: picking room_rate_ids closes all their channel rates, and channels can scope the close to a single channel, clarifying how the two optional arrays interact. It stops short of format examples but meaningfully enriches the parameter behavior.

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 ('Stop sell the room rates... or a whole channel, for a date range') and enumerates the three scoping modes. It also names the sibling update_restrictions as the undo path, so an agent can tell it apart from siteminder_update_rates and siteminder_update_availability without opening a 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 describes when to use it (setting a stop sell for a date range) and how to reverse it ('call update_restrictions with stop_sell set to false'). It also names a when-not condition via the downstream PMS/RMS/CRS overwrite caveat, plus a required confirmation step before each call.

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