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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses side effects (immediately blocks inventory, synced to connected channels), reversibility (cancel via update_booking), and an auth prerequisite (token with bookings write access). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating shared inventory.

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 core action, then flows through options, undo, and auth requirement. Every sentence carries new information; nothing restates the name or title.

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 34-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, side effects, auth, and undo well. It omits what a successful call returns (e.g. the created booking id), and only briefly touches the large optional-field surface, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 the schema already documents most fields. The description adds meaning for checkAvailability and the notify flags, but it does not touch the three required parameters (roomId, arrival, departure) or the many other optional fields. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, 3 is the correct baseline.

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+resource with scope: 'Create a new booking in a room for given dates and guest details.' It also names beds24_update_booking as the tool for undoing the operation, which disambiguates it from the sibling update tool and lets an agent place it correctly in the create/update/get/list family.

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?

Provides clear operational context: when to set checkAvailability=true (refuse if room not free), notifyGuest/notifyHost for emails, and the explicit undo path via status cancelled with beds24_update_booking. It lacks any explicit 'when not to use this' statement, so it stops short of full 5-level routing guidance.

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