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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-read-only, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: tables are auto-numbered after existing ones ('Tafel 4') when no name is given, and moment_id can be inferred. It doesn't mention permissions, limits on total tables, or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (what it does, default naming, moment_id inference), with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler.

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 five-parameter, all-optional creation tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition covers the important operational facts: scoping to fixed-seat moments, default naming, and moment_id inference. A note on whether the created tables are returned, or any cap on total tables, would close the remaining gap.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it shows count and seats interacting ('10 round tables of 8'), explains the auto-numbering fallback for name, and gives the inference rule for moment_id. Only the interaction between name and count (name only applies to a single table) is left to the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Adds one or more tables to the seating plan of a moment with fixed seats') and scopes it to moments with fixed seats, which cleanly separates it from the update-/delete-/get-seating siblings. The concrete example ('10 round tables of 8') makes the operation 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?

It states the usage context (a moment with fixed seats, usually the dinner) and gives an explicit rule for omitting moment_id when only one moment qualifies. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use cases or pointing to update-seating-table as the alternative for changing existing tables, so it falls just short of a 5.

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