Update Rate (spot rate)

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

Descriptions goes beyond annotations by disclosing the preview/write gating via confirm, which is a safety-critical behavior not implied by readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true alone. It also explains the null amount fallback, adding meaningful context about how the tool behaves. It doesn't contradict annotations, though it could mention idempotency explicitly.

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 description is four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: scope, preview behavior, default amount behavior, and optional parameters. No filler or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage aspects: confirm gating, null amount fallback, and optional min/max nights. It relies on the schema for dates and currency formats, which is acceptable. Missing details like return values are less critical for a mutation tool, so this is fairly complete.

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?

The description adds semantics for amount (null = seasonal default) and confirm (must be true to write), which are not fully detailed in the schema. It also mentions min/max nights as optional, but without explaining their effect. With schema description coverage at 57%, the description partially compensates but still leaves min_nights/max_nights and property_id unexplained.

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+resource: 'Set the nightly rate for specific dates on a property (spot rates).' This clearly states the tool's function and scope, distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like ownerrez_get_property or ownerrez_list_bookings. The parenthetical 'spot rates' adds precision by indicating this is date-specific rate setting, not a general rate template.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Without confirm=true it only previews' tells the agent when to include confirm for a real write, and 'amount=null means use the seasonal default' explains when to use null. While it does not name alternatives, the tool is the only rate-update sibling, so the purpose inherently guides selection. This fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' category.

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