iaas_reserve_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety bar is covered; the description adds valuable behavior beyond that—the TUS resumable protocol, the location returned as a response header on the bodyless initial call, and non-idempotent multiphase semantics. It does not disclose auth requirements or the consequence of the OVERWRITE option, which is a gap.

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?

It is reasonably short but structurally messy: a weak 'Reserve package' opener, run-on sentences without punctuation, a typo ('bundleIdis'), and a proofreading inconsistency ('bundleIdis') that can impede parsing. The valuable conditional logic is buried mid-paragraph rather than 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 no output schema, it covers the essential pieces: multiphase flow, response-header location, protocol reference, and per-branch parameter meaning. It lacks error/failure behavior, permission prerequisites, and the overwrite consequences of the body option, so it is strong but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description earns above baseline by explaining how body absence, bundleId, and compressedBundle each change the operation's meaning—context the schema's terse 'Package import request specification' does not provide.

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 states a specific two-phase purpose (initial import request returning a location header, and finalizing/completing the import) and ties it to the TUS resumable upload protocol. It is clear, though the name 'reserve package' and title don't obviously map to 'package import', and it never distinguishes itself from the nearby iaas_import_package sibling.

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 mode-selection logic: no body for the initial request, bundleId when all batches are sent, compressedBundle for a complete single-shot import. That is real when-to-use guidance, but it never says when to prefer this over iaas_import_package or iaas_import_package_http_method_override.

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