modify_reservation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it modifies existing reservations, has a preview mode (when confirm=false/omitted), and requires user confirmation for actual changes. However, it doesn't mention potential constraints like rate limits, cancellation policies, or authentication needs.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second provides critical usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by adding essential information not obvious from the tool name or schema alone.

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 reasonably complete: it clarifies the tool's purpose, distinguishes it from siblings, and provides crucial behavioral guidance. However, it lacks details on error conditions, response format, or side effects (e.g., cost changes).

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies parameters are optional ('dates, room type, etc.') and emphasizes the 'confirm' parameter's importance, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 ('Change') and resource ('existing Hilton reservation') with specific examples of what can be modified ('dates, room type, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_reservation' (which terminates) and 'get_reservation' (which only reads).

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Set confirm=true only when you have explicit user confirmation.' This directly addresses when to use (with confirmation) and when not to (without it), helping the agent choose between preview and actual modification modes.

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