libcal_book

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the user_confirmed=true requirement, the category restrictions, and the anti-far-future-booking guardrail. It could additionally mention side effects like calendar creation or failure behavior, but the key behavioral constraints are well covered.

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?

The description is tightly structured with a numbered workflow and no filler. Each sentence contributes necessary operational guidance, and key constraints are front-loaded before the raw category list.

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?

The description covers the critical workflow context: prerequisites, confirmation requirement, category options, and when invocation is appropriate. It leaves some operational details to the schema (duration bounds, optional parameters) and doesn't describe error/return behavior, but for a booking action the core invocation context is complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that date and start_time come from user choice or libcal_suggest options, that user_confirmed must be true, and by listing valid categories. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Book a specific UNC LibCal slot.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the required prerequisite workflow with libcal_suggest and by limiting scope to confirmed, specific bookings.

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?

Provides explicit, step-by-step usage guidance: call libcal_suggest first for open-ended requests, present options, only call after user picks an option or gives explicit date/time, and never auto-book a far-future date when sooner options exist. This is strong, actionable routing guidance.

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