update_booking_status

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

The description discloses side effects that annotations do not convey: cancellation notifies the attendee by email and fires booking.cancelled, while completed/no_show are internal and do not contact the attendee. It also flags partial applicability of statuses, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/destructive hints.

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 with no filler: purpose, constraints, side effects, and sibling routing are all packed in efficiently. The most decision-relevant information (statuses, preconditions, and alternative) is front-loaded.

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?

With two fully described parameters, an output schema, and annotations provided, the description covers the essential call semantics and side effects. There is no missing guidance an agent would need to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description still adds value by clarifying preconditions tied to status values (only scheduled bookings; completed/no_show need the meeting to have started) and the booking lifecycle meaning, so slightly above the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Close out a confirmed booking of the current team') and enumerates the three supported outcomes (completed, no_show, cancelled). It also preempts ambiguity by pointing to review_booking for pending requests, so an agent can tell this apart from nearby sibling tools.

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 states the exact precondition ('Only works on a booking whose status is scheduled') and the additional temporal requirement for completed/no_show ('require the meeting to have already started'). It names the alternative tool and condition ('To handle a pending request use review_booking instead'), leaving no inference needed.

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