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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that this is a full-replace operation (complete list mandatory), that partial/invalid input is refused rather than partially applied, that name matching is case- and whitespace-insensitive, and that responses return the order as ids with names. With destructiveHint and idempotentHint set, these added semantics are exactly what an agent needs to avoid surprising side effects.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, matching rules, refusal behavior, and auth requirement, with no redundant sentences. Every sentence carries operational information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return shape ('order as ids with names'), the failure mode, and the auth prerequisite, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: name matching ignores case and surrounding spaces, and results echo back ids with names. It clarifies the place_ids vs place_names relationship only at the level the schema already does.

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 (sets the order) and a specific resource (all properties on the wedding's guest site and accommodation screen), which is clearly distinct from siblings like set_my_property_room_selection or place_my_guests_in_rooms. An agent can identify the tool and its scope 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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: the complete list is required, ids or names are both acceptable, and partial or invalid lists are refused. It adds a prerequisite (sign-in plus Aisle membership) but does not name an alternative tool for related reordering tasks, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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