reserve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the reservation persists in the background and is released on cancellation, expiry, or invalidation, which tells the agent about side effects and resource hold time. It does not mention permissions or concurrency/conflict 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by lifecycle and return details. The parenthetical '(with the given filters/priority)' is mildly redundant, but overall there is little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so describing the return shape (reservation_id, deprecated token) is a bonus rather than a necessity. However, for a non-idempotent, non-destructive creating tool with a nested filters object documented nowhere, the description leaves the input semantics and conflict/priority behavior unclear.

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 coverage is 0% with two parameters, one of which is a nested 'filters' object. The description only restates the parameter names as '(with the given filters/priority)' without explaining what attributes filters select or how prio resolves contention, so it does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a reservation') and clarifies the scope with the lifecycle behavior ('keep it alive in the background until it is cancelled, expires, or is invalidated'). It implicitly contrasts with cancel_reservation but never names siblings explicitly, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 lifecycle sentence implies this is a long-lived claim on resources that must later be released, which is useful context for when to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives like acquire_place or reservation_wait, so usage is only implied.

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