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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: partial update semantics ('Only fields supplied are changed') and an authentication requirement ('Requires NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN'). Since annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, these details meaningfully clarify the operation's behavior.

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 compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no redundant wording. Every sentence delivers functional information (what updates, partial update behavior, auth requirement).

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?

This is a mutation tool with 18 parameters and no output schema. The description omits return value behavior, error conditions (e.g., invalid stayId), and prerequisites beyond the token. While partial-update semantics are helpful, the description leaves significant gaps that an agent would need to guess or infer.

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?

With only 28% schema description coverage and 18 parameters, the description does not compensate for the schema's gaps. It groups parameters into broad categories ('contact/owner/manager details and social media links') but provides no insight into specific roles like ownerEmail vs bookingEmail, or hostFullName. This leaves the agent without guidance for many parameters.

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 ('Update') and a specific resource ('Stay's contact/owner/manager details and social media links'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getMyStayContacts (read operation) and updateStayDetail (general stay details). The scope is precise and 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?

The description implies the tool is for updating contact-related information but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. 'Only fields supplied are changed' is a behavioral note rather than tool-selection guidance. There is no mention of when not to use or which sibling tool might be a better fit.

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