update_reservation_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('更新') but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or what happens to related data. The examples hint at status transitions but lack detail on constraints or system behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose with examples. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes illustrative examples without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, response format, or system impacts. Given the complexity of status updates and multiple sibling tools, more context is needed to guide proper 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 the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying the 'reason' parameter's use cases or 'new_status' implications. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb '更新' (update) and resource '预约状态' (reservation status), with examples of specific actions like '取消预约、恢复预约等' (cancel reservation, restore reservation, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_reservation' by focusing on status changes rather than deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'update_reservation_time_by_mobile'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'delete_reservation' for cancellations, or how it differs from time-update siblings like 'update_reservation_time_by_mobile'. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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