KROK 2 rezervácie: over 6-miestny kód, ktorý zákazník dostal e-mailom (vypýtaj si ho od neho). Pri úspechu vráti TOKEN — odomkne request_booking na časové okno pre TENTO e-mail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | 6-miestny kód z e-mailu | |
| Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the success outcome (returns token, unlocks request_booking), but does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior is partially described.
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 a single sentence front-loaded with context ('KROK 2 rezervácie') and efficiently covers purpose, action, and outcome without unnecessary 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?
Given no output schema and two required parameters, the description explains the core purpose and success output, but omits details like error handling, input validation, or exact sequence with sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully 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 50% (only code has description). The description adds meaning by linking the code to the email and stating the token is for that email, but does not elaborate on email format or validation. It partially compensates for the missing schema 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?
The description clearly states the tool is step 2 of reservation, verifies a 6-digit code, and returns a token that unlocks request_booking for a specific email. This distinguishes it from siblings like request_booking and request_verification.
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 explicitly says it's step 2 and instructs to ask the customer for the code, providing clear context for when to use. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the intended use case is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.