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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the required key scope (bookings:config), optimistic concurrency via expected_version with a 409 conflict outcome, and the immediate-visibility side effect ('a live page changes for visitors at once'). None of this is derivable from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the versioning caveat, then a bracketed usage block — easy to scan. The prompt-injection boilerplate is wordy but is standard safety copy rather than filler about the tool itself.

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?

No output schema, yet the description covers the mutation semantics, permission scope, concurrency failure mode, and visibility impact — everything needed to invoke safely. Remaining gap is the opaque settings object, mitigated only by a pointer to booking_page_create rather than enumerated fields.

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 40% and settings is an undescribed nested object, but the description compensates by defining it as a subset of booking_page_create fields. It also explains expected_version's provenance (version read from get_booking_page) and the 409 consequence, going beyond the bare integer type.

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 and resource ('Change a booking page's settings ... and / or redirect_path') and immediately anchors the field set to a named sibling ('the same fields as booking_page_create, any subset'), so an agent can distinguish it from create/get/publish without opening any 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 an explicit workflow prerequisite: read with get_booking_page first and pass expected_version, otherwise conflicts surface as 409. The [When to use] block adds a clear consent gate ('only when the user explicitly asks'). It stops short of contrasting against booking_page_publish or booking_resource_update, so no full alternatives map.

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