request_booking_action_codeEmail a 6-digit verification code to the booking owner, required before cancelling or modifying a booking. Step 1 of 2 — then call cancel_booking/modify_booking with the code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Which action the code authorizes. | |
| publicId | Yes | The booking's public id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it emails a code (non-destructive but state-changing), specifies the code is 6-digit, and explains it's a prerequisite. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. Could mention failure scenarios, but overall good.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information, no fluff. Every sentence is essential.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and next steps. Could mention edge cases like email failure, but information is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds chaining context but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema.
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 that the tool emails a 6-digit verification code, required before cancelling or modifying a booking. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_booking and modify_booking by positioning as Step 1 of a two-step process.
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?
Explicitly states that this tool is required before cancelling or modifying a booking and directs the agent to call cancel_booking or modify_booking with the code. Provides clear when-to-use and next-step instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: searching, fetching details, checkout flows, booking management, trips, and payment methods. Overlaps like search vs search_hotels and get_booking vs get_my_booking are differentiated by input type or purpose, avoiding ambiguity.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_trip_item, create_checkout, get_rooms). A few exceptions like `fetch` and `search` lack a verb prefix, but they are still descriptive and fit the overall convention.
With 18 tools, the server covers the full hotel booking lifecycle without overwhelming complexity. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers searching, viewing details, booking, checkout, cancellations, modifications, trips, and payment methods. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_trip or update_payment_method), but the core workflows for booking management are complete.