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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the full-replacement semantics ("anything not included will be UNCHECKED"), which is the single most important behavioral risk here. It also states the auth token requirement and the read-before-write workflow.

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, front-loaded with the action and its example, then the destructive replacement warning, then the prerequisite, then the auth requirement. Nothing is redundant and the highest-risk fact is emphasized in caps.

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?

Covers the mutation semantics, prerequisite lookup and credentials, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. With no output schema present, a brief note on what a successful update returns (or what errors look like) would close the last 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it frames facilityDetailIds as a COMPLETE replacement list and clarifies that group corresponds to a checkbox group such as spoken languages. It stops short of adding format/syntax detail the schema doesn't already carry.

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 (Set), resource (options for one facility/checkbox group on a Stay) and even a concrete example (which languages are spoken). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling getMyStayFacilities, which only reads selections.

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?

Explicitly says to call getMyStayFacilities first to see current selections and valid IDs, and names the required NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN. The agent knows both the prerequisite and the selection condition without inferring anything.

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