resy_add_favorite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it doesn't say whether the add is idempotent, what happens if the venue is already favorited, or whether authentication is required.

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 and key field front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though there also isn't enough content to make it fully informative.

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 simple one-parameter mutation whose annotations cover the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits failure behavior, idempotency, and any hint of the counterpart tools, leaving gaps an agent would face at the edges.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It names venue_id but adds no semantics beyond the name itself—no format, source, or constraint detail—though the field is largely self-explanatory as an integer venue identifier.

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 (venue to the user's favorites) and identifies the keying field. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like resy_remove_favorite or resy_list_favorites, but the operation is unambiguous from the wording.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or mention of the sibling alternatives (resy_remove_favorite, resy_list_favorites). An agent can infer intent but gets no routing guidance.

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