add_extras

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an additive operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires payment, affects reservation totals, allows removal of extras, has rate limits, or returns confirmation details. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes helpful examples without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on mutation effects, error conditions, return values, and parameter usage, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation in this context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional extras' and examples, which loosely map to the 'extras' parameter, but doesn't explain 'confirmation_number' or 'last_name' semantics, nor details like extra ID formats or quantity constraints. Baseline is 3 as it adds some value but doesn't fully cover the parameters.

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 action ('add') and target ('optional extras to an existing reservation'), with specific examples (GPS, child seats, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_reservation' or 'modify_reservation' by focusing on extras, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage for adding extras to an existing reservation but provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'modify_reservation' (which might also handle extras), prerequisites (e.g., reservation must be active), or exclusions (e.g., cannot add after pickup).

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