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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds substantive context beyond those hints: partial-update semantics ('only pass the fields you're changing'), a concrete 409 error when the application is already submitted, a required auth token, and validation parity with createCoworkingApplication. This is rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences with purpose front-loaded, no filler or repetition. Every clause earns its place: scope, update strategy, failure condition, and auth requirement.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the definition covers purpose, partial update behavior, validation alignment, the 409 error condition, and auth. It leaves per-field semantics to createCoworkingApplication and does not mention the success response, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 22%, so the description must compensate for undocumented fields. It provides useful high-level guidance—same field set and validation as createCoworkingApplication, and only pass changed fields—which informs all optional parameters. However, it gives no per-field semantics (e.g., city, address, website), so it only partially compensates for the sparse 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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Coworking Application'), with scope ('any subset of fields'), and distinguishes from siblings via 'existing, not-yet-submitted' and a reference to createCoworkingApplication for field set and validation. An agent can tell it apart from create, submit, list, and get without opening the 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?

Provides when: existing and not-yet-submitted; when-not: already submitted (fails with 409); how: only pass changed fields; and a prerequisite: requires NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use if the application is already submitted, but the condition and constraints are otherwise clear.

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