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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the notification default here differs from the API's own default (send_notifications defaults false in this wrapper), and it flags that moving triggers an availability check. Annotations already declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint, so the remaining gap is mainly about failure modes when availability checks fail.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker, the mutable field list, the notification caveat, and the endpoint. No filler.

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?

A 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema gets a clear action summary, the notification behavior, and the availability-check side effect. It doesn't describe what happens when the availability check fails or what the response body returns, which would complete the picture.

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 78%, so the baseline sits at 3; the description goes slightly beyond by grouping parameters into intents (service/resource/label/spaces edits vs a time move via `parts`) and highlighting the notification-default divergence. It largely echoes what the schema already documents for service_id, resource_id, parts, and send_notifications.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'WRITE:' marker and a specific verb+resource ('change a booking's service, resource, label or total spaces'), then enumerates the move case via `parts`. This distinguishes it cleanly from create_booking, cancel_booking, and update_booking_customer.

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 field list makes the tool's scope clear (editing vs cancelling vs creating), and mentioning `parts` for relocation tells the agent which parameter selects the reschedule behavior. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as cancel_booking for removal or update_booking_customer for the customer link.

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