opentable_modify_preview

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details the internal mechanics: URL includes confirmationNumber + securityToken + isModify=true, returns modify_token for the next step. It also warns about Listing-type restaurants blocking modification. This adds significant behavioral context.

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 relatively long but well-organized: purpose first, then inputs/outputs, then comparison with sibling, then requirement, then limitation. Front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly more concise.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: what inputs are needed, their sources, what outputs to expect, and a critical limitation. It clearly fits into the workflow with opentable_modify.

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 description groups parameters into existing identity and new slot args, explaining their origin (from opentable_list_reservations or opentable_find_slots). With 58% schema coverage, this complements the missing param descriptions effectively, though not every param is individually detailed.

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 previews a modification to an existing reservation, specifying inputs (existing identity + new slot args) and outputs (cancellation policy, CC details, modify_token). It explicitly distinguishes from opentable_book_preview and notes the limitation for Listing-type restaurants.

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 explicitly states this tool is REQUIRED before opentable_modify with no shortcut. It also mentions when it might not work (Listing-type restaurants, requiring check of opentable_get_restaurant.bookable). Context for when to use vs. siblings is clear.

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