resy_add_notify

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the async email notification on a matching slot, the near-term-only eligibility window, and how time_start/time_end bound acceptance. It stops short of covering idempotency or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two facts an agent actually needs (email behavior, time-window semantics, date-window limit). No filler or repetition of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does cover the key consequence (email notification). It omits what is returned on success and whether the resulting registration needs an id for later removal via resy_remove_notify, which is a minor but real gap for a mutation tool.

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 67%, and the description adds real meaning on top of it: time_start/time_end are framed as the acceptable window (HH:MM, 24h), reinforcing the schema's pattern and defaults. It leaves venue_id and party_size to the schema, which is reasonable given they are self-evident.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Subscribe to Priority Notify for a venue/date/party size,' which an agent can immediately distinguish from the list/remove notify siblings. It is clear and specific, though it never names those siblings explicitly the way a 5 would.

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 ~30-day notify window is stated as a real constraint, which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit guidance contrasting it with resy_find_slots (immediate availability) or explaining when notify is preferable to simply booking — usage must be inferred.

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