Update Luma guest status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that preview mode is non-mutating and that certain status changes force refund decisions. It does not contradict the annotations and meaningfully enriches them with the refund-required condition.

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 dense sentences deliver the essential tool behavior, the preview contents, and the most important constraint without fluff. The key idea — preview or update — is front-loaded, and every clause contributes useful 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the preview behavior and the refund requirement, but it omits the message parameter, send_email behavior, and explicit update confirmation flow. An agent could call the tool correctly for simple cases but may miss important side effects without checking parameters individually.

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 only 29%, so the description carries some burden. It indirectly maps to should_refund ('refund choice') and send_email ('notification settings'), and clarifies the preview output, but it does not explain message, event_id, status enum meanings, or confirm the confirmation flow beyond what is already in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Preview or update one guest's status' — and clearly scopes the tool to a single guest's status. The focus on 'status' naturally distinguishes it from siblings like update_guest_tickets, and the added preview mode clarifies an important dual behavior.

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 implies a preview-then-update workflow and states a critical rule: moving an approved paid guest to a non-approved status requires an explicit refund choice. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like approve_waitlisted_guests or update_guest_tickets, and it lacks any when-not-to-use guidance.

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