clm_site_equipment_command_discard_equipment_booking

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the critical behavioral nuance: a draft booking is permanently deleted, while an existing valid booking only has its in-progress draft data cleared. This is exactly the kind of side-effect transparency an agent needs before invoking a destructive command.

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 a single, dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the conditional behavior clearly separated by a semicolon. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of structured metadata.

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?

For a destructive one-parameter command, the description covers the target, the action, and the conditional side effects well, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, because the description does not explicitly connect the EquipmentBookingId parameter to the booking being discarded, there is slight ambiguity around what value to pass and the null default.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (EquipmentBookingId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameter semantics. The description never mentions EquipmentBookingId, its role, or the fact that it can be null/defaulted, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's meaning from its name alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discards') and a clear resource ('site equipment booking'), then goes further to explain the two distinct outcomes: permanent deletion for drafts vs. clearing draft data for valid bookings. This precision distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_equipment_booking_comment and update_site_equipment_booking_status.

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 scopes the tool to 'in-progress' bookings and explains the conditional behavior based on booking state, which tells an agent when this operation applies. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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