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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (modifying), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), and idempotentHint=true. The description's 'Change' is consistent and adds no contradiction. However, it does not disclose partial-update semantics (e.g., 'only specified fields are updated') or potential failure modes like missing accommodation_id. Given annotations cover safety, this is acceptable but not enriching.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and main targets, making it easy to scan.

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 16 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify that only provided fields are updated, what 'property' refers to, or what constitutes a successful response. The tool's complexity demands more context to guide correct invocation, making this description inadequate.

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 low (38%), so the description should compensate. It groups parameters into broad categories ('property', 'dates', 'price', 'confirmation', 'notes'), which gives some meaning but omits many fields (latitude, longitude, provider, booking_url, etc.). It does not clarify ambiguous terms like 'property' (name vs. address) or how partial updates work. The description adds marginal value but insufficiently covers the parameter space.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change a booking's property, dates, price, confirmation or notes.' It uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a booking's...'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling update tools by being accommodation-specific. The listed fields align with the schema, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage guidance is only implied. The description says what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., 'Use this when you need to modify an existing accommodation') or contrast with creation/deletion. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer that it applies to existing bookings.

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