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

Annotations already declare a bounded write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral value on top: the 409 failure when already submitted, the partial-update contract, and the required NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN. Return format is still unspecified, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the scope and the partial-update rule are front-loaded before the failure and auth details. Every sentence carries information.

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-param mutation with no output schema and no annotations beyond safety, it covers what an agent most needs: scope, partial-update mechanics, the 409 precondition, and the required token. The main shortfall is that field-level semantics are delegated to a sibling rather than spelled out.

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 only 22%, and the description does not name or explain the individual fields. The cross-reference to createCoworkingApplication for 'same field set and validation rules' plus the 'only pass fields you're changing' note partially compensates, so it lands above a pure deficit but doesn't fully cover the gap.

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 operation (partial update of an existing, not-yet-submitted Coworking Application) with the verb, resource, and preconditions all explicit. It clearly distinguishes itself from createCoworkingApplication, submitCoworkingApplication, and getCoworkingApplication without needing 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?

Gives concrete usage context: only pass changed fields, only applies to not-yet-submitted applications, and defers the field set to createCoworkingApplication. It doesn't explicitly route the agent to submit/get alternatives, but the creation and gateway conditions are well covered.

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