trmnl_create_room_booking_collection

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds only the generic "Changes remote state or starts work / run within authorized scope" line. Nothing is said about what the new collection contains, defaults applied, or whether repeated calls create duplicates beyond the idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the key resource_id constraint in the first two lines; the endpoint and scope lines are slightly boilerplate but short and not wasteful.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description omits what is returned (collection id?) and any permission requirements beyond the vague authorized-scope note. Adequate to invoke correctly, but thin for a state-changing call.

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 33% but the nested body fields carry their own enum descriptions for display_layout and collection_type, and path.installation_id is documented. The description's value-add is limited to the origin and minimum cardinality of resource_ids, leaving name, show_booking_qr, and show_company_logo to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a calendar collection") and ties it to a concrete endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from update/delete/list collection siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives a real prerequisite (resource_ids come from listRoomBookingCalendars and at least one is required) plus a scope warning, but offers no explicit when-not guidance or routing to update_room_booking_collection vs this create call.

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