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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds material context beyond that: only passed fields are sent (partial-update semantics) and dates/property are immutable, which directly affects how safely an agent invokes it. It stops short of covering permissions, error behavior, or side effects of status changes.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the field list, partial-update rule, and immutable-field exclusion are delivered efficiently. The trailing endpoint reference is compact and mildly redundant but not wasteful.

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 tool with minimal annotations and no output schema, the description covers mutable fields, partial-update behavior, and immutable fields well. It omits permission/auth context and response expectations, which keeps it from being fully 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 every one of the 17 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description groups the fields into categories but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 (update) and resource (existing reservation) and enumerates the mutable field groups, which is highly specific. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for comparison, though 'existing' implicitly contrasts with smoobu_create_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?

Provides a useful exclusion ('Dates and property cannot be changed here') but does not name an alternative tool for those cases or state when to prefer this over create/list/get tools. Usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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