update_reservation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action ('update an existing reservation'). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether updates are reversible, what permissions are required, how conflicts with other reservations are handled, or what happens if dates overlap. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what values are returned, or important behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of updating reservations (which involves date validation, seat availability, etc.), 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%, with all four parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., doesn't explain relationships between parameters or validation rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 verb ('update') and resource ('existing reservation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'cancel_reservation' or specify what aspects can be updated beyond what's implied by the parameters.

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 like 'cancel_reservation' or 'create_reservation'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing reservation ID) or contextual constraints (e.g., cannot update past reservations).

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