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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) by disclosing the 409 failure mode on already-submitted applications and the required NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN auth. It does not detail reversibility or what a successful response contains, but the failure and auth behavior are the important additions.

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 zero filler, front-loaded with the operation itself before the partial-update rule, the failure mode, and the auth requirement. Every sentence adds a distinct constraint.

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 and 29 mostly-undocumented parameters, the description covers the critical unknowns: partial semantics, pre-submission precondition, error behavior, and auth. Validation rule details are deferred by reference rather than stated, which is a minor gap.

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?

With 29 parameters and only 17% schema description coverage, the description must carry the semantics and largely does not. It conveys the partial-update rule and points to createExperienceApplication for the authoritative field set and validation, but most individual parameters (address, name, pricing fields) get no meaning from either source.

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), a constrained resource (an existing, not-yet-submitted Experience Application), and the partial-update scope ('any subset of fields'). This clearly separates it from createExperienceApplication and submitExperienceApplication in the sibling list.

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 when-to-use context: only on not-yet-submitted applications, only pass fields you're changing, and it names createExperienceApplication as the field-set reference. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling save tools for other application types, but the resource qualifier makes the routing obvious.

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