cycles_reserve

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the reservation lifecycle (returns reservation_id to commit/release later) and the conditional usage (do not proceed if not ALLOW). However, it does not detail expiration behavior, side effects of not releasing, or permission requirements, but these are minor omissions for a reservation tool.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds a critical instruction and an alternative. Every sentence adds value without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the core usage and return value (reservation_id). However, it lacks parameter explanations, error scenarios, and detailed interaction with sibling tools beyond cycles_decide, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters beyond implying budget (estimate). Key parameters like idempotencyKey, subject, action, ttlMs, dryRun, metadata, gracePeriodMs, and overagePolicy are left completely unexplained, making it hard for an agent to fill them correctly.

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's verb ('Reserve budget'), resource ('budget'), and purpose ('before a costly operation'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool cycles_decide by noting that the latter is for lightweight preflight checks without reserving.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Reserve budget before a costly operation') and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the alternative ('use cycles_decide instead' for lightweight preflight checks). It also instructs the agent: 'If decision is not ALLOW, do not proceed with the operation.'

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