opentable_add_favorite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeat-call profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the target of the mutation ('Saved Restaurants list') and says nothing about auth requirements, behavior when the restaurant is already saved, or error cases.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is well-formed but so terse that it forgoes easy opportunities to add routing or parameter context.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the minimum needed to call it correctly is nearly present, but the origin and valid range of restaurant_id and the result of a duplicate add are left unexplained.

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 0% and the description gives no information about restaurant_id — not its format, not where to source it (e.g. from opentable_search_restaurants or opentable_get_restaurant). For a tool whose only parameter is an opaque numeric ID, the description should compensate and does not.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a restaurant') plus the destination ('user's Saved Restaurants list'), which cleanly separates it from opentable_remove_favorite and opentable_list_favorites. It stops short of naming those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opentable_remove_favorite, nor any prerequisite (e.g. obtaining a valid restaurant_id via opentable_search_restaurants). Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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