reserve

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false. The description adds substantial context: the reservation is kept alive in the background, can be cancelled, expires, or invalidated, and returns the serialized reservation with a token. This goes beyond annotations and is crucial for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Create a reservation', and contains zero filler. Every clause adds meaningful information about lifecycle and return value.

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?

The description is complete for a create operation: it covers the action, inputs, lifecycle, and return value. The output schema exists, so return details are handled there. It could mention the cancel mechanism more explicitly, but the sibling list includes cancel_reservation, implying the connection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description names 'filters/priority' but does not explain the meaning of filter keys or priority values beyond what the schema types indicate. It adds some context that these are inputs to the reservation, but leaves ambiguity about their semantic roles.

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 tool creates a reservation with filters/priority and keeps it alive in the background, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_reservation and list_reservations. The verb 'Create' plus resource 'reservation' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear context that this is for creating a reservation, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like acquire_place or list_reservations. The lifecycle hints (cancelled, expires, invalidated) imply use cases but no exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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