reserve_types

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

Adds key behavioral info beyond annotations: it's a batch operation requiring definition_json and description for every type. Annotations are minimal (no destructive hint, not read-only), so description carries burden. Could mention idempotency or side effects but overall helps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb 'Batch-reserve', no fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but description does not explain return value (e.g., reserved IDs). Also lacks mention of error cases or prerequisites. Incomplete for a batch operation.

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% with detailed parameter description. Description reinforces required fields (definition_json, description) but does not add new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the tool batch-reserves type IDs before writing multiple type definitions, using specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like reserve_type (singular) and other reserve tools.

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?

Implies usage context (before writing multiple type definitions) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like reserve_type or finalize_types, nor provide when-not or exclusions.

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