hemmabo_booking_reschedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic price recalculation and Stripe charge/refund handling, and specifies return values. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or other potential side effects.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding essential information. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides all necessary context without redundancy.

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 complexity (automatic price recalculation, Stripe integration) and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (previous dates, new dates, price delta, Stripe details) and prerequisites (booking status check). This covers the key context for an agent.

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 already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minor value by noting that 'reason' is optional but recommended for host records. This is helpful but not essential.

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 reschedules confirmed or pending bookings to new dates. It uses a specific verb ('reschedule') and resource ('booking'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hemmabo_booking_cancel' and 'hemmabo_booking_status'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (guest wants to change travel dates) and when not to use (cancelled/completed bookings), and advises checking status first via 'hemmabo_booking_status'. This provides clear guidance for the agent.

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