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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and not destructive. The description adds important behavioral details: renames fan out to future bookings automatically (side effect), status changes are delegated to set_space_status, and admin-only access. This provides context beyond annotations, though it does not mention rollback or cancellation behavior.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and editable fields, the second covers side effects and delegation, the third states permissions and requirements. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (13 parameters, nested objects for hours/address) and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, delegation, and access requirements. It misses the 'description' parameter and the mapping of 'hour cap' to max_booking_hours, but overall is sufficient for an update tool with sibling tools handling other concerns.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It lists several fields and states 'null clears', which adds meaning. However, it uses 'hour cap' while the schema field is 'max_booking_hours', causing potential confusion. It also fails to mention the 'description' parameter and does not explain the nested structure of 'hours' and 'address' beyond listing them. Thus, it compensates partially.

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 clearly states it edits a venue Space's fields and lists the editable fields (name, location_name, floor, capacity, photos, rules, hours, address, hour cap, timezone). It distinguishes from the sibling tool set_space_status by noting that status changes should use that tool. This gives a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for editing fields) and mentions that status changes go through set_space_status, providing an alternative. It also notes admin-only requirement and required parameters (community_id, space_id). However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or mention other alternatives.

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