create_vip_booking_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sends the request directly to the venue booking desk, requires a venue flag, and includes instructions for confirmation. However, it does not mention side effects like irreversible actions, confirmation emails, or failure modes. Still, it adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 moderately lengthy but well-structured with examples and step-by-step instructions. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential usage details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly shortened without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema not referenced), the description covers key usage context but omits parameter details and return values. It is adequate for an agent if the schema is well-named, but not fully self-contained.

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 input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only indirectly explains booking_date, arrival_time, and party_size through format examples. Other required parameters like customer_name, customer_email, customer_phone, and venue_id are not explained. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema 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?

The description clearly states it creates a VIP table booking request and sends it directly to the venue booking desk. It specifies the prerequisite (venue must have vip_booking_supported=true) and provides a distinct action from siblings like cancel_vip_booking_request. The verb 'create' combined with resource 'VIP booking request' is specific and 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: confirm booking date and arrival time in venue local time before calling, handle midnight confusion with a specific format, and regenerate confirmation if the day changes. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear for an agent.

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