trmnl_create_public_booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and open world; the description adds real value by disclosing the per-token rate limit, that the title is capped and defaulted when blank, and the specific booking-window and midnight constraints. Return format and failure behavior are still unstated.

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 core rules are front-loaded and dense in a good way, but the trailing "Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope." is generic boilerplate, and the run-on constraint sentence is harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 mutating, open-world tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the booking rules well but omits the collection-token query parameters, the profile selector, and any indication of what a successful booking returns.

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 only 25%, so the description carries much of the burden. It explains duration_minutes (on-demand rooms only, 15/30/60) and the title cap/default, and implies the times-vs-duration tradeoff, but says nothing about the query resource_id/resource_type (collection tokens only) or the profile parameter.

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?

"Book a room as a visitor" states a specific verb and resource, and "Public: no bearer token" differentiates it from the authenticated trmnl_create_room_booking sibling. However, it never names that sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the pairing.

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?

Gives clear conditions: visitor context, no bearer token, must fall within the room booking window, must end before midnight, and on-demand rooms use duration_minutes instead of times. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the authenticated booking tool instead, leaving that to inference.

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