Save Auto-Booking Rule

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false), no destruction (destructiveHint=false), and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by stating the post-condition requirement ('confirmed and approved'), but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like required permissions or side effects on other entities. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for usage condition. No redundant or extraneous information. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity, and the usage condition is front-loaded after the purpose statement.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the essential purpose and a key usage constraint. However, it does not explain what an 'auto-booking default' is, how it affects the booking process, or how the parameters relate. For a tool that likely integrates into a larger workflow, more contextual information would be beneficial.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already explains all 9 parameters. The tool description does not repeat or augment any parameter details, so it adds no additional semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses specific verbs 'save or update' and identifies the resource as 'one stable counterparty auto-booking default', clearly distinguishing the tool's purpose. It also provides a condition ('after treatment confirmed and approved'), adding semantic precision. While no explicit sibling differentiation is given, the surrounding tool list confirms no similarly-named tool exists, so the description stands alone effectively.

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 clear usage constraint ('Use only after the treatment has been confirmed and approved'), but does not mention when to avoid using it or suggest alternative tools. For a tool that likely interacts with a booking workflow, more guidance on prerequisites or related tools (e.g., 'suggest_booking') would improve the score.

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