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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: the need for an MCP agent token scoped to the owning account, the boutique cap that causes rejection after 6 rooms, and the auto-assignment of Boutique1-6 slots for boutique stays. These complement the annotations, which only show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and there is no contradiction.

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 four sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by prerequisites, constraints, and auth requirements. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or 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?

The description provides prerequisite calls, auth requirements, a hard cap, and special boutique behavior, which is thorough for a mutation tool with no output schema. It doesn't state the return value or success indicator, but that is not strictly necessary given the absence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with rich descriptions, including the boutique-specific behavior of roomTypeFK and mcpRoomId. The description adds caller guidance (e.g., 'find valid roomTypeFK/roomFacilityFk values') but does not introduce new per-field semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Create a new room on a Stay', which is a specific verb and resource, and it clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like updateStayRoom and deleteStayRoom. The rest of the description reinforces the creation purpose by mentioning prerequisites and constraints.

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 explicitly instructs to call getRoomTypeOptions(stayId) and getRoomFacilityOptions() first, and warns about the boutique 6-room cap. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it versus alternatives like updateStayRoom, but the creation context is clear and the guidance is actionable.

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