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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the plan-based access rule that can block booking, the reversibility, that it reaches no one else, and the Cotlet API key requirement. That's solid behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and structured into purpose, constraints, and safety rationale. Mostly efficient, though the 'runs without asking' sentence is a touch conversational.

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 carries return-format burden implicitly, but for a booking tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the access rules, reversibility, and auth requirement make it nearly complete.

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 class_id and member_id are fully documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about parameter format or source beyond what the schema already says. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reserve a spot in a class for a member') and describes the mechanism ('Adds a member to a class from the class view in Core'). It even names the sibling that reverses it, letting an agent distinguish this from pushpress_remove_reservation without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions: access rules block bookings when a plan doesn't allow the class, and the fact that remove_reservation undoes it means it 'runs without asking.' This is strong context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like check_in_member.

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