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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses PATCH-style partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields to change') and the underlying endpoint (PUT /v1/tasks/{taskId}), but says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are reset, status-transition rules, or error behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences: the mutation capabilities are front-loaded, the partial-update rule follows, and the endpoint is parenthetical. 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 a 17-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential call mechanics (which fields, partial update, endpoint) and the schema covers parameter detail fully. It stops short of return/error behavior, but the partial-update convention is the main thing an agent needs and it is 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 description coverage is 100% across 17 parameters, so the schema already documents each field, including the status enum and date formats. The description only restates a few examples (e.g. completed, resolution note) and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus an enumeration of what can change (status, assignee, window, resolution note), which lets an agent distinguish this from create_task and list_tasks without opening any 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?

Usage context is implied by the name and the listed mutation types, and 'Send only the fields to change' gives a partial-update convention. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not split versus hostaway_update_reservation or hostaway_create_task, and no stated prerequisites.

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