Reserve a room for a specific date and time slot by providing room, date, start time, and end time. Use it to create bookings in Nexudus coworking spaces.
Book a room for a specific time slot
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| room | Yes | Room name (partial match OK) or numeric room ID | |
| notes | No | Optional booking notes | |
| end_time | Yes | End time in HH:MM 24-hour format | |
| start_time | Yes | Start time in HH:MM 24-hour format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. It does not say what happens on a time-slot conflict, whether the booking is confirmed immediately, whether notes are persisted, or whether the operation is reversible (cancel_booking exists, implying reversibility, but this is not stated).
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?
A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.
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 4-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits conflict handling, confirmation semantics, and error behavior. The agent has the required inputs but no picture of what the call does behaviorally or what it returns.
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 every parameter including date/time formats, partial room-name matching, and optional notes is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the expected baseline when 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Book a room') plus the scoping constraint ('for a specific time slot'), so the agent knows this is a write operation creating a booking. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_available_rooms or get_room_schedule, but the booking vs. searching distinction is largely self-evident from the verb.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious prerequisite workflow (e.g., checking availability first with search_available_rooms). The agent is left to infer that this is the terminal step of an availability-check-then-book flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.