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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds an authentication requirement and mentions archiving, which is useful context, but it does not disclose more nuanced behavior such as partial-update semantics or archive reversibility.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the auth constraint and then lists the editable fields. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

This is a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal schema descriptions. The description gives only a high-level field list and does not explain required parameters, units, business_id conditions, or expected behavior on archive, leaving an agent under-informed.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 11%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It maps plain-language terms like 'advance booking' and 'cleanup time' to fields such as min_advance_hours and buffer_after_min, but it leaves units, the required offering_id, and the conditional business_id unexplained.

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 clearly states the operation ('Change') and the resource (service, class, or rental) with a concrete field list. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like owner_update_business.

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?

The description provides a clear usage condition: 'Only for business owners signed in to Awning.' However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or related tools.

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