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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds material detail beyond them: the deletion is permanent, it cascades to all price tiers, it is a hard delete unlike the soft room deletion, and it requires an MCP agent token scoped to the owning account. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before an irreversible mutation.

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 filler; the destructive nature is front-loaded, then the cascade scope, then the auth requirement. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 two-param mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the irreversible nature, cascade side effects, and auth requirement. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with their EntryID semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further detail about packageId format, lookup, or validation, making this a baseline 3.

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 ('Permanently delete a pricing package') and names the cascade target ('all its price tiers') from a Stay. An agent can distinguish it from createStayPackage/updateStayPackage without opening any schema.

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 clear context for choosing this tool ('Permanently delete', only when hard removal is intended) and contrasts it with room deletion, which is soft. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for reversible changes or stating preconditions like package ownership beyond the token requirement.

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