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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the Boutique-stay 6-room cap with rejection-once-full behavior, the 'one per Boutique1-6 slot' assignment rule, and an auth requirement ('MCP agent token scoped to the owning account'). These are exactly the operational constraints annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before prerequisites and constraints. Every sentence carries load (prerequisite calls, capacity cap, auth), though the density is right at the edge of what a single paragraph can hold cleanly.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisite tool calls, server-side edge cases (boutique slot auto-assignment, 6-room cap), and authorization scope. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the schema (including boutique-specific behavior for roomTypeFK and mcpRoomId). The description adds the source tools for the FK values, but does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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: 'Create a new room on a Stay', which cleanly separates it from the updateStayRoom/deleteStayRoom siblings by inherent verb contrast. However it never names those siblings or otherwise explicitly routes the agent away from them, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 concrete prerequisites — call getRoomTypeOptions(stayId) and getRoomFacilityOptions() first to obtain valid FK values — which is actionable when-to-use guidance. It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., use updateStayRoom to modify an existing room), so no exclusions are stated.

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