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

With annotations already indicating idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Only the fields you pass are changed,' clarifying partial update semantics. It also honestly discloses the deprecation status and that the old name remains functional, which is important for agent reasoning.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the deprecation warning, which is critical for agent decision-making. The second paragraph is efficient, though the illustrative clause about buyers refining thinking is slightly verbose. Overall, it is focused and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, exclusions, and field semantics, with strong support from annotations and schema. Given the moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the lack of return-value details is a minor gap. It is nearly complete for an update tool with good structured metadata.

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 descriptions cover 83% of parameters, so the baseline is high. The description adds a semantic grouping of fields ('what they want to discuss, what they want out of it, or the background they want read first') but does not deeply enrich the syntax or provide examples beyond what the schema already offers. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 clearly states the tool updates the session type or brief on an existing booking, with specific examples of the fields affected. It also distinguishes itself from reschedule_booking and points to the preferred rename update_order_details, making its unique role unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: use when the buyer refines their thinking after booking. It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'This does not move the meeting — use reschedule_booking for that' and cites the alternative update_order_details as the preferred tool.

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