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

Annotations carry destructiveHint=true, so the agent is warned this is a mutating operation. The description adds useful context ('send only fields to change') but does not disclose reversibility, what happens to fields not sent, permission/auth requirements, or whether the update is idempotent – gaps that matter for a destructive update with no output schema.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short operational hint. Front-loaded with the verb and scope, zero filler, and the endpoint reference is compactly placed at the end.

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 17-param destructive update with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage hint, and endpoint. It falls short on mutation semantics (reversibility, unsent-field behavior, auth) but schema coverage at 100% compensates for parameter documentation, making this nearly complete.

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 all 17 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description names status, reassignment ('assigneeUserId' by implication), window ('canStartFrom'/'shouldEndBy'), and resolution note, which adds modest mapping value but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Update a task') and enumerates the concrete kinds of changes (status, reassignment, window, resolution note), which distinguishes it clearly from hostaway_create_task and the sibling update tools (update_calendar, update_reservation).

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?

It gives a clear usage cue – 'Send only the fields to change' – which tells the agent this is a partial-update (PATCH-like) operation. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the PUT endpoint and field-change instruction provide actionable context.

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