create_reservation_note

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

Annotations are all false, providing no behavioral hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the note is internal and team-visible, but does not mention permissions, whether it appends or replaces notes, or any other side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or 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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct selection and invocation. It clearly states what the tool does and its key visibility constraint, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% coverage with descriptive parameter names and descriptions ('Note text to add', 'The reservation ID'), so the description need not add more. The description's mention of 'internal note' adds slight context to the note parameter but no significant additional semantics.

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: 'Add an internal note to a reservation visible only to the property management team.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and identifies the resource ('reservation') and the note's scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task or create_expense.

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 implies when to use this tool (when an internal, team-only note needs to be added to a reservation) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are provided, so it falls short of explicit usage guidance.

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