ihg_book_room

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the need for login and indicates the tool completes an end-to-end booking flow, but it does not state explicit side effects such as creating a confirmed reservation, charging a card, or the possibility of non-refundable bookings. 'Full booking flow' hints at these but leaves key behavioral details implicit.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose, prerequisite, and behavior. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

This is a high-complexity booking tool with five required parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, yet the description omits crucial return information (e.g., reservation confirmation) and side effects (e.g., card charge, cancellation policy). While the schema covers parameters, the description does not explain what happens on success or failure, making it incomplete for an agent to set expectations.

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% and the schema itself includes clear descriptions for all parameters, including the nested guest_info and a reference to ihg_get_room_rates for room_type. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but because the schema covers everything, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Book') and resource ('a hotel room at an IHG property'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ihg_modify_reservation or ihg_cancel_reservation. The added phrase 'Will complete the full booking flow' reinforces that this is a comprehensive booking action, not just a partial step.

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?

Requires login' gives a clear prerequisite, and 'Book a hotel room' establishes when to use this tool versus modifying or canceling a reservation. However, it does not explicitly mention that one should first retrieve room rates via ihg_get_room_rates or compare with other tools, though the schema references that dependency.

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