reserve_slot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the reservation expires, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the reservation can be extended, how long the window is (e.g., 'short window' is vague), or what happens if the reservation lapses (e.g., is it automatically released?). For a temporary reservation tool, more specificity is needed to avoid misuse.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loading the purpose and then immediately providing the critical usage note. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second emphasizes the required parameter and the expiry warning. There is no fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 required params, no enums, output schema present), the description is relatively sparse. It covers the essential usage but lacks details on reservation behavior (e.g., duration, guarantee), failure scenarios, or whether multiple reservations can be held. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the temporary nature of the resource demands more operational guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one key piece of information: 'slotId is REQUIRED (use the slot ID from get_available_slots response)', which clarifies where to obtain this parameter. However, it doesn't explain the other parameters (start, event_type_id, attendee_time_zone) beyond their schema descriptions, so no additional value is provided for them.

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's purpose: temporarily reserve a slot before creating a booking. It uses a specific verb (reserve) and resource (slot), and distinguishes it from booking creation. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'create_booking' or 'delete_slot_reservation', though the phrase 'before creating a booking' implies the distinction.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states that the slot ID must be taken from 'get_available_slots' response and that the reservation expires after a short window, so the booking must be created before it lapses. This clearly tells the agent when to use the tool and the necessary follow-up action, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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