Create reservation

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the expected timestamp format and warns that the ID is a reservation-item ID rather than an asset ID, but says nothing about overlap/conflict handling, permission requirements, or what happens when a slot is already taken.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the two practical constraints (timestamp format, correct ID source) following. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the 80% schema coverage handles most parameters. What remains thin is conflict/idempotency behavior for a booking tool and whether users_id defaults to the calling user. Overall sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The value-add is the explicit warning that reservationitems_id is not the asset ID and must come from glpi_list_reservation_items, which prevents a likely class of caller error. The restated begin/end format duplicates the schema, and the undocumented 'comment' field is left unaddressed.

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 first sentence pairs a specific verb and resource ("Book a reservable item") that an agent can immediately distinguish from glpi_update_reservation, glpi_list_reservations, and glpi_get_reservation. It also names the prerequisite sibling tool, so the tool's role in the workflow is unambiguous.

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 the workflow (fetch the reservation item first, then book it) but never states when to choose this over glpi_update_reservation or what conditions make a booking invalid. The pointer to glpi_list_reservation_items is a useful prerequisite hint, but timing and alternatives are left implicit.

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