Transition a guest to a new lifecycle stage

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: this is a PATCH-style mutation, it is gated by a state machine, and invalid transitions are rejected by the API rather than by the tool — so errors surface as server responses. It stops short of stating permission requirements or the response payload.

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 purpose and endpoint before the transition table, and every clause earns its place — the transition list is dense but is exactly the information needed to invoke the tool without error.

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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknown (the legal state machine) well. It does not describe the return value or auth requirements, which are the remaining gaps.

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 two required params are already documented, but the description adds real value on top of the bare enum by spelling out which stage-to-stage moves are legal and what the back-transitions mean (declined, reschedule, re-record, invite back).

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 (transition) and resource (guest lifecycle stage) and even names the underlying endpoint PATCH /api/v1/guests/:id/stage, which unambiguously separates it from siblings like add_guest or list_guests.

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 enumerates the valid forward and back transitions, which is precisely the usage guidance an agent needs before choosing a stage value, and it clarifies that validation is the API's job rather than the tool's. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over other guest-mutating siblings.

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