Maître d'MCP

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the selection logic (most recent upcoming when using restaurant name) and mentions return types. However, for a cancellation operation, it omits critical safety context such as irreversibility, refund implications, or notification side effects.

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?

Uses a structured docstring format with Args and Returns sections that frontload the essential information. The content is dense with no redundancy, though the Returns section is slightly superfluous given the existence of an output schema.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately avoids detailing return values. However, for a destructive operation (cancellation) with zero security annotations, the description should include warnings about irreversibility or required permissions to be complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section. It clarifies that restaurant_name triggers a lookup while confirmation_id is specific, providing sufficient semantic context for the AI to populate arguments correctly despite the sparse schema.

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 action (Cancel) and resource (reservation), specifying support for Resy and OpenTable platforms. While it identifies the domain effectively, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'make_reservation' beyond the implicit verb difference.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on parameter selection logic: 'Provide either the restaurant name... or a specific confirmation ID.' It clarifies that using the restaurant name triggers cancellation of the 'most recent upcoming' reservation, which is critical for correct invocation. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives to sibling tools.

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