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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing downstream consequences: calendar availability display changes and Bookingmood automations fire (guest e-mails, tasks, payment reminders). The annotations only flag destructive/idempotent/openWorld; the description explains what is actually destroyed or triggered, which is the high-value detail.

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 'WRITE:' then the operation, then the risk warning, then the endpoint — a sensible order with no filler sentences.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the operation, valid values, side effects, caution requirement, and the underlying endpoint. Nothing material is missing.

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 100% and the status enum with its three values is already defined there, so the schema carries the weight. The description adds only the scoping notion of 'ONE' event, which the required event_id already implies.

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?

Names a specific verb (change status) on a specific resource (ONE calendar event) and enumerates the three valid target states. The WRITE prefix and the PATCH endpoint make it unmistakable against read siblings like bookingmood_list_calendar_events.

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 clear guidance on when to pause for human confirmation ('confirm with the user before cancelling or confirming'), which is actionable for an agent. It does not, however, mention alternatives such as update_event_notes for non-status edits, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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