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

With only destructiveHint=true provided, the description adds real behavioral context: patch semantics (only passed fields mutate), that cancellation is reversible by resetting status, that addInfoItems appends without touching existing items, and that changes propagate to channels 'where allowed.' It stops short of disclosing required permissions, error behavior for invalid ids, or channel-sync failure handling.

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?

Dense, front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries information (patch semantics, info items, channel sync, endpoint mapping). The first sentence is a long enumeration that could be tightened slightly, but overall there is little waste.

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 33-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials an agent needs: partial-update behavior, the cancellable status, side effects on channels, and the underlying API call. Minor gaps remain around error handling and override-vs-append behavior for notes/comments 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 moderate (61%) across 33 parameters, and the description compensates by grouping fields into recognizable categories and clarifying status and addInfoItems semantics. It adds no format/syntax detail beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline-plus level rather than genuinely enriching parameter meaning.

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 ('Change an existing booking') and enumerates the mutable domain (dates, room/unit, guest counts, guest details, notes, flag, price, status), which clearly separates it from beds24_create_booking and the read-only getters. An agent can identify the tool's scope without inspecting the 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?

The partial-update rule ('Only the fields you pass change') gives useful invocation context, and the status example implicitly signals cancellation usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools (create_booking, get_booking) or any preconditions such as a valid existing bookingId.

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