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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: rooms=0 closes the whole room type and all rates, external PMS/CRS syncs overwrite the change, confirmation is on by default but toggleable, the call reaches other people so user confirmation is required, and a suitably-scoped Cotlet API key is needed. This is exactly the mutation/authorization context a caller 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 leading scope sentence is front-loaded and the warnings are useful, but the second sentence ('Sets rooms available per night for a room type.') largely restates the first, and the confirmation/people-reaching clauses are somewhat redundant with each other.

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 mutating, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, external-overwrite risk, confirmation behavior, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs before invoking 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 3. The description goes slightly beyond by explaining that a rooms value of 0 is a meaningful sentinel that closes the room type and rates, adding value the schema's 'Rooms available per night.' does not convey.

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 with scope: 'Set the number of rooms to sell per room type over a date range, for all channels.' It explicitly distinguishes the room-type-level scope and names the sibling tools (close_dates, update_restrictions) needed for channel-level control, so an agent can identify it against neighbors like update_rates and update_restrictions.

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 explicit routing: availability is room-type-wide, and to limit a single channel you must use close_dates or update_restrictions instead. It also flags when this tool is the wrong choice (two-way PMS/RMS/CRS will overwrite it). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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