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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds real value beyond that with 'These values sync to channels' (external side effect) and the restore workflow for the destructive nature of overwriting. It stops short of stating permissions or rate limits, but meaningfully enriches the safety picture.

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-loads the verb and scope, then layers fields, the null rule, the sync side effect, and the read-first advice in tight sentences. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is 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?

For a 24-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description is well covered: it names the settable fields, the external sync effect, the restore workflow, and the API endpoint. It omits auth/permission requirements, which would round it out, but the essentials are present.

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 high at 83%, so the baseline is met by the schema itself, but the description still adds value by grouping the 24 parameters (availability, stay rules, multiplier, override, price1..price16) and restating the null-removes-price semantics for the many price slots. It also helps interpret fields like minStay/maxStay/multiplier that lack schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Set per-day calendar values'), scopes it to ONE room over a date range, and enumerates exactly which fields are settable, including the override enum values. An agent can distinguish this from sibling get_room_calendar and get_room_availability without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite flow: 'Read the current values first with beds24_get_room_calendar so you can restore them,' naming the sibling to use before this destructive operation. It does not spell out a when-not-to-use case, but the read-first guidance and the null-to-remove rule give clear operating context.

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