reschedule_sessionMove a booking to a different slot at no charge. Requires the email the order was created with. Call check_availability first to get a valid new_slot_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Must match the order's email | ||
| order_id | Yes | ||
| new_slot_id | Yes | A slot_id from check_availability |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that the reschedule is free and requires the original email. These details are useful, though it does not mention side effects on the old slot or error handling.
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?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a requirement and a prerequisite step. Every sentence carries distinct information with no wasted words.
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?
The description covers the core action and prerequisites, but it does not distinguish from the similar sibling 'reschedule_booking' and lacks information about the operation's outcome. With no output schema and minimal annotations, additional context would be beneficial.
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 schema already describes email and new_slot_id (67% coverage), and the description repeats this information without adding new meaning. The order_id parameter remains undescribed, and the description does not compensate for that 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 clearly states the tool moves a booking to a different slot at no charge, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'reschedule_booking', which could cause ambiguity.
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 gives clear context by specifying the email requirement and recommending calling check_availability first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but it provides enough guidance for the intended use case.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the session booking lifecycle and certificate operations. However, the four deprecated aliases (cancel_booking, get_booking, reschedule_booking, update_booking) perform exactly the same actions as their new counterparts, creating potential confusion despite the deprecation notices.
Newer tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_order, cancel_order, get_order_details, reschedule_session), but the use of 'order' vs 'session' is inconsistent, and 'order_certificate' uses 'order' as a verb. The deprecated aliases mixing 'booking' with 'order' further muddies the convention, making the overall naming only moderately predictable.
At 16 tools the set feels slightly heavy, but four are deprecated aliases that are exact duplicates of active tools. The effective 12 unique tools are well-scoped for a shop handling both session bookings and certificate purchases, so the count is reasonable.
The session booking lifecycle is fully covered (availability, create, cancel, reschedule, update, status, details) and certificate operations (order, transfer, renounce) are present. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to list all orders or verify a certificate, but these are not critical to the core workflows.