Batch Set Availability

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it can block or unblock via the 'available' boolean and returns a summary. It does not contradict annotations and adds some context (e.g., reason field) but beyond annotations, behavioral traits are limited. Score 3 is appropriate as annotations carry much of the burden.

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 concise: three short paragraphs (overview, args, returns, example). Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No redundant or verbose 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?

The tool has 2 parameters with full schema coverage. The description specifies the return value (summary with counts) and provides a realistic example. There is no output schema, but the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know about the response. For a bulk operation tool, this is complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining each field in the ranges array (e.g., reason optional, max 50 items) and provides a concrete example. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, warranting a score of 4.

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 'Set availability for multiple properties and date ranges at once.' It specifies the verb (set), resource (availability), and scope (batch across multiple properties/ranges). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rizerve_block_date (single date) and rizerve_get_availability.

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 explicit usage context: 'Efficient for bulk operations like blocking off-season dates or marking multi-property maintenance windows.' It suggests when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. However, the sibling tool names imply alternatives for single-property operations.

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