Record a booking's outcome

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that won/lost can propagate to a CRM deal stage, that the call is rejected without confirm, that a stale expectedVersion yields a 409 carrying the current version, and that an Idempotency-Key is required but auto-generated if omitted. It also states required scopes (bookings:write, luca:queue_ops) and redacted data sensitivity.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the metadata block is scannable. However, the confirm/CRM-deal point is stated twice (once in the opening, once in the 'Destructive when...' block), which is mild redundancy in an otherwise tight description.

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, versioned, authenticated write with an output schema present, the description covers the side effects, confirmation gate, concurrency control, idempotency, and workspace scoping. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return values are correctly left to the output schema.

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 67% schema coverage, the description carries real weight: it explains confirm's rejection behavior, expectedVersion's 409/stale semantics, idempotencyKey's retry role, and the workspaceId/workspaceSlug override. Body-level fields (amountMinor, currency, lossReasonDefinitionId) are only implied by the outcome enumeration.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource and enumerates the three outcome states ('won, lost with a reason, or still open'), so the agent knows exactly what is being written. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. luca_bookings_outcome_get, luca_bookings_outcome_history, or luca_call_events_undo_outcome), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It gives conditional guidance: pass confirm: true for won/lost because those touch a connected CRM deal, and pass expectedVersion when correcting a prior outcome. It does not say when to prefer this over outcome_history/undo_outcome, so exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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