approve_reservationApprove or reject a detected Naver reservation offer. Set approve to true to proceed with booking, or false to ignore the offer and continue monitoring.
ASK 모드에서 발견된 예약 제안을 승인(예약 진행)하거나 거절합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| approve | No | True면 예약 진행, False면 이번 제안을 무시하고 계속 감시. | |
| watch_id | Yes | 대상 감시 id (상태가 AWAITING_APPROVAL 이어야 함). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only says 'approve or reject' without mentioning consequences like triggering a reservation or ignoring the proposal, though the schema hints at behavior for the approve parameter. This is insufficient for a mutating action.
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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It states the purpose efficiently without any 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 two-parameter tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers the core action and context (ASK mode). It doesn't address usage vs siblings, but that's a usage guideline gap rather than completeness. Overall, it's adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, relying entirely on parameter descriptions already present.
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 states a specific action ('approve or reject') on a specific resource ('reservation proposal found in ASK mode'). It is clear and distinguishes from siblings that handle watch management or direct reservation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 usage context (ASK mode proposals) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like reserve_now or reservation_status. No exclusion criteria or conditional guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.