create_hold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 30-second default TTL, automatic expiration, the promotion path via commit_booking, and the outranked payload when a higher-priority agent already holds the slot. It omits permission requirements and idempotency behavior, but the key lifecycle behaviors are well covered.

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 front-loaded with the core action and TTL, then details optional fields, then conflict behavior. It is efficient with no filler, though slightly dense; a small amount of structure could improve readability.

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 return values needn't be fully explained, but the description helpfully mentions the outranked payload. For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description should explain the required start/end semantics and what idempotency_key does. Its coverage of parameter behavior is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains only two of six parameters (title and invitee with its fields) and leaves start, end, metadata, and idempotency_key completely undocumented. Partial coverage with significant gaps warrants a low score.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reserve a slot tentatively.' It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from commit_booking by explaining that a later commit_booking promotes the hold. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from the commit sibling.

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 clearly implies the usage pattern: create a hold first, then call commit_booking to finalize. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives for cases where a hold isn't needed, but the flow is unambiguous. No when-not guidance is provided, keeping it below a 5.

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