clm_site_equipment_command_save_site_equipment_booking_info

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

Beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the core upsert behavior: it creates a brand-new booking with status UnApproved when none exists for the given id, or updates the existing booking or draft otherwise. It also reveals that drafts are handled by the same call. This is substantive behavioral context the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two dense sentences with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence and the behavioral nuance in the second. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and every clause contributes information an agent needs.

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 description covers the core behavior and step semantics well, and the presence of an output schema obviates return-value documentation. However, the phrase 'for the given id' is ambiguous since the schema exposes both ItemId and EquipmentId, and the many undocumented parameters are not fully compensated for.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across the 13 parameters, the description carries a high burden and partially compensates by grouping fields into 'booking date, weather info, time slots', which maps onto BookingDate, WeatherSymbol*, ScheduleTimeTemperature, and Slots/BookingFromTime/BookingToTime. However, several parameters (ItemId, EquipmentId, TimeZone, TimeZoneOffset, IsExpressEquipment) receive no semantic clarification, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 ('saves') with a precise resource ('the booking-date step of a site equipment booking') and enumerates the step's contents in parentheses (booking date, weather info, time slots). This step-level specificity distinguishes it from sibling step-savers like save_site_equipment_other_info and save_site_equipment_transport_info even without naming them.

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 makes the tool's context clear: it handles the booking-date portion of a site equipment booking, which conveys a distinct purpose from the other save_site_equipment_* step tools and the shipment wizard tools. It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use it or point to an alternative, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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