reserve_function

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) are all false, so they provide no behavioral clues. The description adds the critical detail that 'null fields make functions invisible to future sessions', which is valuable behavioral information beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors like reversibility, side effects, or permission requirements.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and adding a critical behavioral note in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools), the description is too brief. It lacks guidance on error conditions, return value expectations, or how this tool relates to siblings like 'reserve_functions' or 'finalize_function'. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and constraints.

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%, meaning all 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description reiterates the importance of 'purpose, parameters, and returns' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage.

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 the action ('Reserve a function ID') and the resource ('function'), with specific instructions on including 'purpose, parameters, and returns'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reserve_file' and 'reserve_type' by specifying 'function'.

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 mentions 'before writing code', implying a temporal usage context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reserve_functions' for batch operations, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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