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

destructiveHint=true already signals a mutating operation, so the description's addition of the POST vs DELETE endpoint mapping and the 'undo the check-in' semantics adds real context beyond the annotation. However, it omits idempotency, permission/auth requirements, and whether the undo is reversible or loses data, which matters for a toggle flagged destructive.

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, front-loaded with the action and toggle semantics, followed by the id source and endpoint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, direction, id provenance, and the underlying endpoints. It stops short of describing the response or error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates checkedIn=true/false. The only added value is tracing bookingId provenance to momence_list_session_bookings, which is useful but not schema-level detail.

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+resource pair ('mark a session booking as checked in') and explicitly covers both directions of the toggle via checkedIn=true/false. The semantics are distinguishable from siblings such as momence_cancel_session_booking or momence_list_session_bookings without opening the 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?

Provides a clear prerequisite/context by naming the upstream tool that supplies booking ids (momence_list_session_bookings). It does not state when NOT to use this (e.g., versus cancelling a booking), but the operational context is unambiguous.

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