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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully adds that only the targeted property is affected, that sign-in plus an Aisle membership is required, and that null reverts to the legacy wedding setting. This is meaningful context beyond the structured hints, though it does not cover error behavior on ambiguous names.

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?

Six compact sentences with no filler; the core action and object are front-loaded, followed by matching rules, mode semantics, side-effect scope, and auth requirements in a logical order. Slightly verbose on details that the schema already documents.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is mutated, that other properties are untouched, auth prerequisites, and the returned fields (property id, stored override, effective mode). Only ambiguity/error handling for duplicate names is left implicit.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's notes on id-or-name matching, case/space-insensitive matching, and the two mode meanings largely restate what both the schema and its parameter descriptions already say, adding little new semantics.

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 room choice\") and resource (one Hosted property in the selected wedding), with clear scope limits ('Other properties retain their settings'). It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the nearest sibling, place_my_guests_in_rooms, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between the two.

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?

Usage is implied through the mode semantics (non-null chooses an assignment mode, null restores the legacy wedding fallback), which tells the agent what each call accomplishes. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative statement or exclusion (e.g., versus place_my_guests_in_rooms), so guidance remains inferential.

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