trmnl_update_room_booking_settings

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. Beyond them the description adds the consequential behavioral detail that omitted keys are preserved (so partial payloads are safe) and that show_company_logo toggles rather than uploads, which prevents a common misuse. The trailing 'changes remote state... run only within the user-authorized scope' is boilerplate and adds little.

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 partial-update semantics and the logo gotcha are front-loaded in two short sentences, which is efficient. The trailing generic caution and endpoint line are lower value but not enough to hurt readability.

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 mutation with a nested body object, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description covers the two highest-risk points (partial keys, logo handling) but leaves most body fields and the profile parameter unexplained. Adequate, but not complete enough to remove ambiguity.

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 33%, and the description compensates for just one field (show_company_logo) plus the general partial-update rule for body keys. Fields like timezone, dark_mode, time_format, public_bookings and the profile selector get no added explanation, so a meaningful gap remains.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Change the settings of a room booking installation') and pins down the operation as a partial PATCH against a named API path, which cleanly separates it from the sibling read tool trmnl_get_room_booking_settings. An agent knows exactly what this mutates 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?

'Keys left out keep their value' tells the agent this is a partial update rather than a replace, and the company-logo sentence is an implicit when-not (images are uploaded in the browser, this only toggles visibility). It stops short of naming the alternative tool for logo upload, so the routing hint is inferential rather than explicit.

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