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

With destructiveHint already set to true, the description adds important behavioral detail beyond annotations: moving dates can trigger a shortage, the call fails with shortage details, and a warning can be accepted by retrying with confirm_shortage: true. It does not cover auth requirements or whether other fields are preserved, but the shortage/retry behavior is a meaningful addition.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the critical shortage behavior, then the underlying API endpoint. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no 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 an update tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the main mutation, the key failure mode, and the retry parameter, though it does not clarify authentication needs or partial-update semantics.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, including confirm_shortage and the date formatting caveat. The description groups the changeable fields conceptually but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what is already in the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Change an order's rental period, customer, locations or tags.' It distinguishes the operation from siblings like booqable_get_order, booqable_create_order, and booqable_transition_order_status by naming the mutable fields.

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 description implies when to use it by listing the fields it can change, and it gives specific retry guidance for shortage warnings via confirm_shortage: true. However, it does not compare this tool against alternatives such as booqable_transition_order_status or state when not to use it.

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