Create booking

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

Annotations only state readOnly=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does so well by disclosing auto-assignment of staff when staff_id is omitted and enumerating validation rejections: past times, closed days, outside opening hours, and double-bookings. It does not detail the response shape, but that is less critical here.

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 tightly scoped sentences with no filler. The primary action is first, staff-assignment behavior follows, validation rules are compactly listed, and the user-confirmation requirement closes the description efficiently.

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 straightforward create operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: what the tool does, how optional staff selection works, what input times are rejected, and the required user confirmation. It is slightly light on explaining any output or error behavior, but that is not necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 low (only start has a description), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for staff_id (auto-assignment if omitted), start (validation constraints), and implicitly maps customer_id/service_id via 'book a customer for a service.' This gives useful semantic grounding beyond the bare integer schemas.

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-resource pair ('Book a customer for a service') that clearly identifies this as the creation action among siblings like cancel_booking and list_bookings. The additional staff-assignment detail further distinguishes its behavior from a simple scheduling call.

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 gives clear context for use ('Book a customer for a service') and adds a critical precondition: confirm details with the user before calling. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling provides equivalent booking creation, so the usage context is sufficient.

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