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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: the hold is temporary and expires after expires_after minutes (default from the organisation setting), and omitting resource_id triggers automatic resource selection restricted by resource_group_ids. That said, it doesn't say what happens if the hold lapses or whether a reservation can be released early, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the mutation marker and the workflow position, then the expiry rule, then the fallback behavior and endpoint. No filler.

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 10-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the missing essentials: workflow position, token/expiry semantics, and the returned reservation id. No output schema is needed since the agent only needs the id to proceed.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented. The description only restates the resource_id default and the expires_after default (which the schema also states), adding no syntax or interaction detail beyond the structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('hold a date and time for a booking') and immediately anchors it in a workflow ('step 2'), distinguishing it from appointedd_create_booking, which it names as the follow-up. The 'WRITE:' prefix and endpoint POST /availability/slots make the operation type 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?

Explicit sequencing: use this to hold a slot, then call appointedd_create_booking with the returned reservation id, and the start value should come from appointedd_find_available_intervals. It doesn't state when NOT to use it (e.g. when a direct booking is preferable), so it falls short of a full 5.

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