resy_add_favorite

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description's 'Add' is consistent with that profile. However, it adds no further behavioral detail: idempotency, duplicate handling, error behavior, and response expectations are not disclosed.

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 with no filler. It states the action and the method of identifying the venue efficiently.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives enough information to know what the tool does and what input is required. A note about response or error behavior would round it out, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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 phrase 'by venue_id' establishes that the venue is identified by the single parameter, but it largely restates the schema property name. With 0% schema description coverage, more detail would have been helpful, though the parameter is simple and self-descriptive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), names the resource ('a venue'), and specifies the target ('user's favorites'), making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like resy_remove_favorite and resy_list_favorites by the operation type.

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 wording implies the tool should be used when a user wants to favorite a venue, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as resy_remove_favorite or resy_list_favorites. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual conditions beyond the obvious action.

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