modify_reservation

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. It states the tool modifies a reservation but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether changes are reversible, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid confirmation number), or what the response includes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Modify an existing Hertz reservation') and lists key modifiable elements. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 of a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings beyond basic hints, and expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies reservations—a potentially sensitive operation—more context is needed to ensure safe and correct 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 low at 29%, with only 2 out of 7 parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'change dates, locations, or vehicle class', which hints at parameters like new_pickup_datetime and new_vehicle_class, but doesn't explain semantics for confirmation_number, last_name, or the distinction between pickup/dropoff parameters. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('modify') and resource ('existing Hertz reservation'), and specifies what can be changed ('dates, locations, or vehicle class'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_reservation' and 'create_reservation' by focusing on updates rather than creation or cancellation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_reservation' or other tools beyond the modification aspect.

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., needing a valid reservation), exclusions (e.g., cannot modify after pickup), or comparisons to siblings like 'cancel_reservation' or 'create_reservation'. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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