manage_booking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists possible actions, it doesn't describe what each action entails (e.g., cancellation policies, upgrade availability, baggage fees), required permissions, rate limits, or response formats. 'Modify' implies mutation, but specifics are missing.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Modify an existing Delta booking') and lists key actions. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating actions with commas instead of em dashes). Every word contributes to understanding.

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 complexity (multiple mutation actions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral details, error conditions, or what to expect after actions like 'cancel' or 'upgrade'. For a multi-action tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that actions like 'view' might not require 'lastName', which is partially covered by the schema's 'required for some actions' note. 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: 'Modify an existing Delta booking' followed by specific actions (view details, cancel, change flights, request upgrades, or add baggage). It uses a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('Delta booking'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_booking' or 'add_bags' which handle similar operations.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_booking' (for viewing) or 'add_bags' (for baggage). The agent must infer usage from the action list alone.

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