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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description complements them with concrete consequences: archiving "cannot be undone" and the owner must be consulted first. It stops short of explaining what happens to existing bookings when an offering is archived, which is the main remaining unknown for a destructive edit.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding, and the gating condition and destructive warning are both front-loaded before the field list. Every clause maps to a real constraint or parameter.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the authorization scope, the editable surface, the confirmation requirement, and irreversibility of archiving. It leaves the side effects of archiving on related bookings and the multi-business case (delegated to the schema's business_id note) unaddressed.

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 only 11% (just business_id), so the description carries the burden, and it enumerates the mutable parameters: name, description, duration, price, advance booking (min_advance_hours) and cleanup time (buffer_after_min), plus archive. It adds no unit or value semantics beyond the schema names and omits any note on offering_id, so it compensates well without being complete.

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 uses specific mutation verbs ("Change", "archive") against a clearly named set of fields on an offering, and "Only for business owners signed in to Awning" scopes who can call it. It is clearly distinct from owner_add_offering, though it never names that sibling or otherwise explicitly routes between them.

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?

"Only for business owners signed in to Awning" gives a hard precondition, and "Confirm with the owner first" prescribes the interaction pattern before the call. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or which alternative (e.g. owner_add_offering) applies, so it falls 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.