Reserve symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions side effects ('creates symbol reservation and audit rows') and failure modes ('strict policy may reject conflicting symbols'). However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive or idempotent, nor details on concurrency behavior. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 structured into labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes), making it easy to scan. It uses only 5 short sentences, each earning its place with specific information. 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 presence of an output schema (as indicated by context), the description adequately covers inputs, side effects, and failure modes. It provides expected output 'reservation status and conflicts.' For a tool with 6 parameters (3 required), this is sufficient context for an agent to understand usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the input parameters but adds limited new meaning beyond the schema. It does clarify the purpose of 'override_reason' ('reason for overriding a conflict when policy permits overrides'), which adds some value. Overall, minimal extra semantics.

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 explicitly states 'Reserve functions, classes, or other symbols for finer-grained parallel coordination.' This clearly identifies the verb (reserve) and resource (symbols), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'reserve_files' which operates at file-level.

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 includes a 'When to use' section: 'call before editing shared APIs where file-level reservation is too broad.' This provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, implicitly contrasting with file-level reservation. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is strong enough for a score of 4.

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