update_reservation_time_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '修改' (modify) implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the name doesn't exist, whether changes are reversible, if there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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 5 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address error conditions, success responses, permission requirements, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of modifying reservations and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete context about how the tool behaves.

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 already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and format patterns. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: '根据预约人姓名修改预约时间' (modify reservation time based on the reservation person's name). It specifies the verb ('修改' - modify) and resource ('预约时间' - reservation time), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_reservation_time_by_mobile' which serves a similar function with different identification method.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus 'update_reservation_time_by_mobile' (which uses mobile number instead of name), or any other contextual usage information.

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