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

Annotations already define idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's burden is reduced. The description adds the partial-update behavior ('pass only fields you want to change'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose other traits like permission requirements, scope of changes, or immediate effect of updates.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence is meaningful and earns its place, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (18 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and partial update hint but lacks context on scope (e.g., applies to current company/outlet) or effect on related settings. With good schema coverage, completeness is adequate but not rich.

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 100%, so the input schema already provides full meaning for each parameter. The description adds only a general partial-update hint, not parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'global booking settings', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_booking_settings' (retrieve) and other booking mutation tools (create, cancel, confirm). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 only minimal guidance: 'Pass only the fields you want to change.' It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_booking_settings to read first), when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The context is implied but not explicit.

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