reserve_type

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that 'null fields force full file reads in future sessions,' which provides additional behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects (e.g., database record creation, ID reservation mechanics) beyond the schema and annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and a key behavioral warning. No superfluous 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 has 6 parameters, 2 required, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., reserved ID), how to use the reserved ID in subsequent steps, or any error conditions. This leaves the agent without sufficient context to use the tool correctly in a multi-step workflow.

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%, so the input schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add any new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation for this dimension.

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 tool's purpose: 'Reserve a type ID before writing the definition.' It uses a specific verb ('reserve') and resource ('type ID'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like reserve_function and reserve_file by focusing on type definition preparation.

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 advises to 'Include definition_json and description' and warns about null fields, providing some usage context. However, it does not specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives like reserve_types or add_types_functions, nor does it explain prerequisites or subsequent steps beyond writing the definition.

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