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

Beyond the simple annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behavioral traits: partial update semantics, the need to resolve lookup IDs via separate getter calls, and a country-based restriction on fullPayment (writing true when disallowed will be rejected). It also states the token scope requirement. It does not cover error formats or return values, but given the annotation hints, this is a solid level of transparency.

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?

The description is compact—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence uses 'IMPORTANT:' to draw attention to critical lookup ID semantics without burying the main point. Every sentence adds necessary operational detail, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 30 parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotation richness, this description covers the essential operational context: partial updates, ID resolution workflow, token authorization, and a specific business rule for fullPayment. It does not specify time formats for check-in/out fields or the meaning of 'receiveReviews', but those are relatively intuitive. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate for under-documented parameters. It does this admirably for the most error-prone ones: countryId, petsAllowedId, childrenAllowedId, parkingId, cxPolicyId, and stayTypeId are explicitly flagged as lookup IDs with the correct getter calls, and fullPayment gets a detailed country-eligibility caveat. However, many simple fields like city, state, and address are left to the schema without additional context, though these are self-explanatory.

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?

The description opens with 'Update a Stay's organisational data' and enumerates specific field categories (address, check-in/out policy, pets/children/parking, cancellation policy, etc.), making the tool's purpose and scope immediately clear. The verb 'update' plus the resource 'Stay's organisational data' distinguishes it from sibling tools like updateStayContacts or updateStayDetail.

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?

The description provides strong usage guidance: it states 'Only fields supplied are changed' (partial update behavior), warns that certain fields are lookup IDs and instructs the agent to call specific getter tools first, and notes the MCP token scope requirement. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use updateStayContacts for contacts'), but the field list makes the intended domain clear.

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