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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the two-phase preview/apply workflow, idempotency key requirement, and the human-approval path (sent to Ronald, status change_requested). This adds meaningful side-effect and state-transition context consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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 three sentences are dense and purposeful: the mandatory call sequence is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentences spell out the key behavioral outcomes. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 complex two-phase mutation with approval routing, the description supplies the complete call pattern, idempotency guidance, and immediate-vs-deferred outcomes. Since an output schema exists, not needing to describe return values does not leave a gap.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining mode semantics)Skip: it clarifies which change types are allowed immediately (flight number, passengers max 5, notes, addresses) and which require approval (new date or different price). It does not enumerate all nested fields, but the schema already provides descriptions for several of them.

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 states the specific action ('Changes a booking') and the exact resource, which clearly distinguishes it from create, cancel, get, hold, and quote siblings. The preview/apply modes further define the tool's unique purpose.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: always call with mode='preview' first, show the result, then call with mode='apply', customer_confirmed=true, and an idempotency_key. It also specifies which changes apply immediately and which require approval, but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions.

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