Update reservation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that structured data: it does not say the update is partial (only supplied fields change), whether omitted fields are preserved, or what authorization is needed for a destructive write.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is mutation semantics for the nested 'input' object and any usage context, leaving the definition minimally viable for a destructive write tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself enumerates the updatable fields (begin, end, comment, users_id), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the ID-based addressing and adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource ('Update an existing reservation') and identifies the addressing key ('by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling reservation tools like glpi_create_reservation or glpi_get_reservation, so it stops short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus glpi_create_reservation, glpi_get_reservation, or glpi_list_reservations, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The only implied context is that a reservation must already exist, which is inherent in the word 'existing'.

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