Бронь места на парковке

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

Annotations already mark the tool as not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the server returns 200 with an empty body regardless of outcome, so the tool re-reads bookings to print what actually saved, and transliterates car numbers. This is exactly the kind of context that goes beyond structured annotations.

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 three short paragraphs, each carrying necessary information: purpose, required parameters, and server behavior. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place and the most important details are front-loaded.

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?

For a mutation tool with sparse schema descriptions, the description covers required arguments, optional-field defaults, odd server response behavior, post-write verification, and transliteration. Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, and it is unusually complete for this tool type.

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 compensates by explaining that date and place_id are mandatory and that place_id is sourced from parking_places(). It also explains the defaulting behavior for empty car_number, car_model, and building_id. It does not specify the date format or building_id semantics, but the essential parameter meaning is covered.

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 the specific verb and resource 'Забронировать место на парковке' (book a parking spot) and immediately clarifies the core effect: it occupies a real place but does not move money. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like parking_places and office_bookings.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: date and place_id are required, and place_id must come from parking_places(). It also explains how empty optional fields are filled from the previous booking. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or name alternative tools, but the context and prerequisite make the usage condition clear.

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