hemmabo_booking_create

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds 'Writes a pending booking server-side; not idempotent — check hemmabo_booking_status before retrying on timeout. Rate-limited per token.' This provides critical behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads purpose and usage. It efficiently packs multiple pieces of information without verbosity. While it could be improved with bullet points, it is concise and each sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of the operation, the description covers when to use, behavior, auth requirements, and alternatives. Missing explicit mention of what the response looks like (e.g., booking ID), but the context is largely 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 100% with well-described parameters. The description adds context for propertyId ('from search') and emphasizes using the exact UUID. While the schema already does a good job, the description provides a few clarifying points for proper usage.

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 verb ('create'), resource ('pending direct booking'), and context ('non-VRP fallback deployments'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like hemmabo_booking_negotiate and hemmabo_booking_quote by specifying the scenario (no signed VRP URL).

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 when-to-use conditions: 'Use only after explicit user confirmation, with a propertyId from search, and only when no signed VRP direct_booking_url is available.' Also tells when not to use: 'For signed VRP offers, route to the signed host-domain URL instead.' This provides clear decision-making guidance.

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