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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: "opens nothing by itself" explains why readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false despite a mutation-sounding name, and the step-by-step return format is disclosed. The absence of rate limits or auth prerequisites keeps it below a 5. No contradiction with the annotations — the description actually justifies them.

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 and mostly efficient, but the trailing "Resy's official API: Resy has no public API (checked 27 Oct 2026)" is redundant and awkwardly phrased, and the internal date adds noise without helping an agent decide or act.

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 covers the return shape (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the handoff to browser tools, which is what an agent needs to act correctly. Minor gap: it does not say what happens if the reservation cannot be changed, or whether identity/account selection is required.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed beyond the user's own account context, and adds nothing misleading about arguments.

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 ("Change a reservation in the user's own Resy account") and immediately clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the change. The name alone would imply mutation, so that clarification is what makes the purpose legible. It does not explicitly contrast with resy_cancel_a_reservation or resy_book_a_reservation, keeping it short of a 5.

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 a clear operating context: call this first to get the Resy screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Resy Cloud Browser. That is real when-to-use and follow-up routing. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. "use resy_cancel_a_reservation to cancel instead").

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