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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds the practical detail that active:false deactivates and true re-enables the link. It omits a key behavioral point for an update tool: whether omitted fields are left untouched (partial update) or reset.

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 with no filler, front-loading the set of mutable fields before the identification instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Output schema is present, annotations are rich, and parameters are largely documented, so little remains to be said. The one meaningful omission is the partial-update semantics, which matters for a tool where only one parameter is required.

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 80%, so the schema already documents link, active, daysAhead and durationMinutes; only title lacks a schema description. The description restates those fields without adding constraints or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('booking link') and enumerates the mutable fields: title, meeting length, days ahead, active. An agent can tell it apart from booking_link.create or workflow.update, though it never explicitly contrasts with any sibling.

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?

Explains how to identify the target ('Name the link by its title or id') and what can be changed, which implies the when. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus a sibling tool, nor any preconditions (ownership, permissions) for editing.

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