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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds materially beyond that: inventory is blocked immediately, changes sync to connected channels, auth requires bookings write access, and it identifies the undo path. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before performing a channel-affecting write.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and side effects, options, undo path, and auth requirement following in priority order. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 side effects, key flags, auth, and recovery path for a destructive 34-parameter mutation, which is strong. The one gap is that with no output schema the description never says what a successful call returns (e.g., a booking id), which the agent would need for follow-up calls.

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 62%, so description and schema split the load. The description clarifies three booleans (checkAvailability, notifyGuest, notifyHost), but says nothing about the remaining 31 parameters, including the required roomId/arrival/departure and the status enum that controls cancellation. Adequate but with a real gap.

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 ('Create a new booking in a room') plus the required inputs (dates, guest details). The mutation scope ('immediately blocks inventory and is synced to connected channels') further distinguishes it from read-only siblings like beds24_list_bookings and beds24_get_booking.

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?

Names a concrete alternative for the inverse operation ('Undo by setting status cancelled with beds24_update_booking') and states prerequisites (token with bookings write access). It also recommends a flag configuration (checkAvailability=true), though it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer creating vs. an inquiry or request status.

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