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 discloses the side effect (sending an email) and the two-step workflow. It aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) and adds context about the code's purpose and lifecycle.
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, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded: purpose, requirement, and next steps.
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 step-1 verification tool without output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, parameters, and follow-up tools.
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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds context that action authorizes a specific operation, but this is also clear from the schema enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it emails a verification code, required before cancellation or modification. It names the specific verb (email) and resource (booking), and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the next steps.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: as a prerequisite for cancelling or modifying a booking. It also directs to use cancel_booking or modify_booking as step 2, providing clear alternatives.
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, e.g., search vs search_hotels, get_booking vs get_my_booking. No overlapping functionality; descriptions clarify subtle differences.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (add_trip_item, cancel_booking) or get_/list_ prefixes. One outlier ('fetch') breaks the pattern slightly, but overall naming is predictable.
18 tools cover the hotel booking domain comprehensively without being excessive. Each tool has a clear role in the workflow from search to booking to modification.
Covers all key lifecycle stages: search, details, rooms, pricing, checkout (standard and one-click), booking management (list, get, cancel, modify), payment methods, and trip saving. No obvious gaps.