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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description earns its keep by spelling out the exact destructive semantics (entire notes text overwritten, must re-include existing text), the notification side effect (none), and the underlying PATCH endpoint. This is richer than what the annotations convey.

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 WRITE marker and the core action, then the critical caveat, then the endpoint detail. Every clause carries operational information; 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 2-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and destructive/idempotent annotations, the description covers the risks an agent needs: overwrite loss, read-first workflow, and lack of guest notification. No output schema is needed for a set-notes operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by explaining that the notes parameter wholesale replaces existing text and that existing content must be re-supplied. It doesn't restate the 5000-char limit or UUID format, but those are covered in-schema.

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?

Specific verb (replace), specific resource (internal notes of ONE calendar event), and explicit cardinality. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bookingmood_set_event_status or 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to read the notes first with bookingmood_list_calendar_events before calling, and explains why (overwrite behavior). It also states the 'when not to worry' condition: no guest is notified.

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