book_space

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent, openWorld). The description adds genuine context beyond that: a policy check must happen first and human confirmation is required before invoking. It stops short of describing failure behavior (e.g. what happens when the slot is taken or policy is violated).

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?

Format constraints are front-loaded in the first line, followed by the name/default note and the policy/confirmation rule. Every sentence has a purpose, though the fragmented line layout is slightly choppier than a single tight paragraph.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema and seven params, the description covers formats and preconditions but omits what a successful call returns (booking id?), how conflicts are handled, and what space_id/building_id mean. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it documents date, start, end formats and the name default. However space_id, building_id, and description — three of seven parameters — get no explanation anywhere, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Book a space') and supplies the date/time format up front, so an agent immediately knows what it does. It doesn't name siblings, but cancel_booking/list_my_bookings are obviously different operations, so differentiation is implicit 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?

Gives clear preconditions: check the space's booking policy (duration, how far ahead) and confirm with the user before calling. This is actionable when-to-use guidance, though it never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case.

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