prepare_booking_creation

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false annotations, it discloses that the call sends no write, that ambiguous, missing, already-booked, waitlisted or unsupported targets yield no reference, and how the confirmation policy is surfaced via writeConfirmationRequired and writeConfirmationPolicy. It also describes the not-yet-open outcome and its gym-local timestamp, which no annotation covers.

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 purpose and the no-write guarantee are front-loaded, and every sentence carries policy that affects behavior. The confirmation section is dense and could be tightened, but it prevents a costly double confirmation or an unauthorized execution.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values such as the reference and bookingOpensAt need not be explained in prose. The description covers the no-write phase, the window gate and the confirmation gate, which are the hard parts. The only remaining gap is the unexplained gym IANA zone requirement, which has no matching input parameter.

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 schema documents none of the four parameters, so the description has to carry that burden. It adds the requirement that the class name, date and start and end time be exact, and that the gym IANA zone be user-confirmed, but it never gives the expected format of date or time, and the zone is not even a schema parameter, which leaves some ambiguity about where it comes from.

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 definition leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the current daily schedule and prepare one exact class booking.' It also separates itself from the write-side sibling by stating 'Preparation sends no write,' so an agent can distinguish prepare from execute without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit use conditions: check writeConfirmationRequired, display the exact preview and get separate confirmation when true, omit confirmed when false, and never treat a query or preview-only request as authorization. It also tells the agent what to do when the booking window has not opened: report bookingOpensAt instead of retrying.

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