Tolk2Go Interpreter Booking

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership constraint, which is genuine auth context, but says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to the interpreter, or how idempotency_keys behave.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, yet the description never covers cancellation effects, idempotency semantics, or the required idempotency_key. Annotations carry the safety signal, but the agent still lacks enough to call this confidently.

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 0% and the description documents none of the three parameters. The word 'owned' weakly implies booking_id must reference a booking the caller owns, but reason and idempotency_key are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel) and resource (interpreter booking) with a scoping qualifier ('owned'). It clearly separates itself from create/get/list siblings by the verb alone, though it adds no detail beyond that.

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?

No guidance on when to cancel versus using tolk2go_interpreting_request_change, which is the natural alternative for altering a booking. The 'owned' qualifier hints at a precondition but is never stated as a rule.

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

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds little beyond 'owner-scoped' — it doesn't explain that the idempotency_key dedupes retries, that the booking is created in a pending state, or what preferred_interpreter_ids does to matching.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, but the second sentence reads like an unrelated note rather than a usage condition, so structure is thin.

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 12-parameter mutation with no output schema and no param docs, the description omits prerequisites, required-field semantics, nested location usage, and success behavior. It is nowhere near complete enough to call this tool reliably.

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 0% for 12 parameters including a nested location object and an enum. The description gives zero per-parameter guidance, so an agent has no idea how to supply language_pair_id, situation_id, preferred_interpreter_ids, or the timezone.

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 verb+resource ('Create ... interpreter request') is clear enough to distinguish it from the cancel/get/list siblings. But 'owner-scoped' is jargon the agent has to guess at, and the purpose isn't sharpened against siblings beyond the obvious create/cancel split.

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 says to use 'public REST catalogue and availability endpoints first', which is a prerequisite-ish hint, but it doesn't say when to use this tool vs. requesting a change or selecting an interpreter, nor does it explain what to do with the response.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the access boundary ('owner-scoped') and the breadth of returned state (booking, payment, change, next-action), which annotations do not convey.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The stacked noun phrase ('booking, payment, change and next-action state') is slightly dense but still readable and every word carries meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the shape of returned state, which helps for a simple one-parameter getter. It remains silent on booking_id semantics and on error/not-found or unauthorized behavior, which leaves gaps an agent would want filled.

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?

The single parameter booking_id has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so nothing explains its format, origin, or what happens if it is unknown or outside the caller's ownership. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 gives a clear verb ('Read') plus resource ('booking') and further narrows what is returned (payment, change and next-action state). It implicitly contrasts with list_bookings by describing a single authoritative owner-scoped record, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this fetches the ground-truth state of one booking, versus listing or acting on bookings. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_bookings or get_responses, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'owner-scoped'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful constraint — that it only returns interpreters who responded as available for an *owned* booking — but discloses nothing about return format, pagination, or whether non-responders are excluded.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifiers (available, owned) front-loaded and no wasted words. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 one-parameter read tool this is nearly adequate, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema, the description never conveys what a 'response' record looks like (interpreter identity, availability state, timestamps), which is the main 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 description coverage is 0% for the single booking_id parameter, so the schema supplies no meaning. The description only implies booking_id identifies an 'owned booking request'; it adds no format, source, or how-to-obtain guidance, leaving the parameter thinly documented.

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?

States a specific verb (read/get) and a clearly scoped resource: interpreters who responded as available for an owned booking request. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_booking (booking details) and list_bookings (booking roster), though it never names the alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (e.g., select_interpreter) that an agent might confuse this with. The agent must infer that this is the step after interpreters have been invited to respond.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the result set can be narrowed by timestamp/cursor, but it discloses nothing about pagination limits, default ordering, or return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core purpose comes first and the optional narrowing behavior follows immediately; every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with annotations already covering safety, the description is adequate but incomplete: it omits pagination behavior, default result count, and any indication of what a booking record contains. With zero schema description coverage, those omissions matter more.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies the semantics of cursor and updated_since ('only changes after a timestamp or cursor'), but says nothing about limit, its default of 25, its 100 maximum, or cursor format, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 and resource ('List ... interpreter bookings') and scopes it to 'this account', so an agent can immediately tell it apart from create/cancel/get siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast against any sibling, which keeps it just short of the top band.

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 phrase 'optionally returning only changes after a timestamp or cursor' implies the tool's incremental-sync use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_booking or get_responses. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — changes don't apply immediately but route through a customer approval flow — which is meaningful. It stops short of describing the resulting pending state, rejection behavior, or errors.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though efficiency here reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 mutation tool with an unconstrained nested `changes` object, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves critical gaps: which change types are accepted, what the approval flow implies for follow-up calls, and how the idempotency key is honored. The annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, but the description does not carry its share.

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 0% across three required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "Supported changes" hints at a whitelist for the free-form `changes` object (additionalProperties, no shape), yet never enumerates what is supported, and `booking_id` and `idempotency_key` go entirely unmentioned.

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 verb ("Submit") and an object ("changes") plus a mechanism ("customer approval flow"), so the general intent is recoverable. But "supported changes" is undefined and the resource (booking) is only inferable from the tool name and siblings — nothing distinguishes this from create_booking, cancel_booking or select_interpreter.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as cancel_booking for a cancellation. An agent cannot tell which change types belong here versus another tool, nor what happens when an unsupported change is submitted.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect: selecting an interpreter 'may create a payment next action.' That is real behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields. It still omits auth/permission requirements and whether a selection can be undone, so it is not a 5.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and appending the side-effect caveat where it matters most. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and three required arguments, the description leaves the agent without guidance on argument semantics, permissions, or the result of a successful selection. The side-effect note helps, but the definition is not complete enough to call confidently.

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 0% for all three required parameters. The description only loosely implies that 'request' maps to booking_id and 'interpreter' to interpreter_id; it says nothing about idempotency_key's role or required format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Select an available interpreter') scoped to an owned request, which is clearly distinct from sibling operations like cancel_booking, create_booking, or get_responses. It does not explicitly name a sibling for routing, but the action is 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?

'for an owned request' and 'available interpreter' imply preconditions (you must own the booking and the interpreter must be available), which is implied usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no mention of the typical workflow position (e.g. after get_responses), and no exclusions.

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