update_booking_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important mutation trait: a day sent replaces that day, [] closes it, and unsent days are untouched. It says nothing about auth requirements, whether omitted scalar fields (timezone, buffers, notices) are also left unchanged, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving material behavioral gaps for a write tool.

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 sentences, no padding, with the core action front-loaded and the trickiest parameter's semantics immediately after. It is dense but readable; a semicolon-heavy sentence is the only minor structural cost.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers availability semantics well but leaves the update semantics of the other five settings unstated, and gives no permission or side-effect context. An agent can call it, but it cannot confidently predict the effect of omitting scalar fields.

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 17% (just timezone), so five of six parameters rely on their names alone. The description compensates well for availability, giving the day-key domain (MONDAY..SUNDAY), the ["HH:MM","HH:MM"] range shape, and replace/close/no-op semantics that the schema does not express, but it adds nothing for max_advance_days, buffer_before/after_minutes, or minimum_notice_hours.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Update booking settings and weekly hours") that clearly matches update_booking_setup and pairs off against the read-only sibling get_booking_setup. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the media/page/post/component tools around it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the get_booking_setup alternative for reading current values, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or scopes. The partial-update rule ("days not sent are unchanged") hints at usage but is really parameter semantics rather than routing guidance.

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