Create a loss reason

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

Going beyond the annotations, the description discloses a concrete failure mode (409 when the code is already in use), the required OAuth scopes (bookings:write, luca:queue_ops), and idempotency-key handling for retries. This is meaningful behavioral context that the structured fields do not carry.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact operation metadata (endpoint, scopes, idempotency, workspace override). Well structured and largely waste-free, though the metadata lines are somewhat boilerplate.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the definition covers scopes, idempotency, conflict behavior, and workspace targeting. It omits a few body fields and any note on the kind enum's meaning, but is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 75%, so the schema largely documents the parameters. The description adds useful semantics to 'code' (uniqueness/409) and 'label' (workspace's own wording) and explains the workspaceId/workspaceSlug override, but says nothing about kind, displayOrder, or bookingTypeId.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a lost-sale or cancellation reason in the workspace's own wording.' This clearly distinguishes the create action from siblings like outcome_reasons_list and outcome_reasons_update, though it doesn't explicitly call those siblings out.

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?

Usage context is present but indirect: it explains the 409 behavior on duplicate codes, when to supply an idempotencyKey for safe retries, and how to override the default workspace. It never states when to use this tool versus the update/list siblings or what preconditions (e.g., existing code set) apply.

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