trmnl_end_public_booking

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the auth model ('Public: no bearer token') and the effect ('Frees the room now'), which are not in annotations. It does not cover failure behavior or what happens to a booking that is not in progress.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the useful constraints follow immediately. The trailing 'Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope.' is generic scaffolding that repeats what the destructive annotation already implies.

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 mutation with no output schema but full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing auth model and the in-progress precondition. What remains thin — error/edge behavior when the booking is not in progress — is minor.

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 schema describes both path fields (booking id, room public booking token) and the profile parameter, and the endpoint template PATCH /api/book/{token}/bookings/{id}/end restates their placement. With ~50% coverage the schema does most of the work and the description adds only the token/id positioning, not new semantics.

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?

A specific verb plus a specific resource ('End a public booking in progress') with a clear scope qualifier ('only a booking made through TRMNL that is in progress'). It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (trmnl_cancel_public_booking, trmnl_end_room_booking), so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Frees the room now; only a booking made through TRMNL that is in progress' gives a real precondition for applying the tool. However, it never compares itself to cancel_public_booking or end_room_booking, so a disambiguating choice is left implied, and 'Run only within the user-authorized scope' is generic boilerplate.

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