create_reservation

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which accurately describe a create operation. The description adds the context of 'direct bookings from your website' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential validation failures, availability checks, or whether a confirmation email is sent. Since it does not contradict the annotations and adds slight context, a 3 is appropriate.

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 consists of two short sentences, each with a clear purpose: the first states the action, the second gives a usage guideline. There is no redundant or extraneous information, and the key details are front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 4 required) and the lack of an output schema, the description does not fully explain what the tool returns (e.g., reservation ID) or any prerequisites like checking availability. However, the comprehensive schema and annotations cover some context, and the usage hint adds useful information. Overall, it is adequate but not complete, warranting a 3.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all 8 parameters, including formats for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) and defaults. The description itself does not add any meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is correct—no extra parameter explanation is needed or provided.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new reservation/booking in Guesty.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying 'Use for direct bookings from your website,' which is unique among the listed tools that handle reservations (e.g., update_reservation, search_reservations).

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 provides clear usage context with 'Use for direct bookings from your website,' telling the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, such as for manual bookings from the Guesty dashboard or when needing to update existing reservations. This is a minor gap, keeping it from a 5.

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