shelf_booking_add_assets

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral: no indication of whether assets must be available, whether quantities/availability are affected, whether reserved bookings are allowed, or what happens on partial failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the target resource appears immediately. It is arguably under-specified rather than wasteful, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the description is far too thin: it does not say what state the booking must be in, what the effect on booking contents or availability is, or what the caller gets back. Only the core intent is conveyed.

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 only 25% — bookingId, kitIds, and assetIds have no schema descriptions. The phrase 'assets and/or kits' hints that assetIds and kitIds are the payload and may be combined, but the description adds no format, defaults, or ID-sourcing context for the two undocumented array parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add assets and/or kits to a booking') and covers both addable entity types in one clause. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling shelf_booking_remove_assets, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (booking must exist, must not be checked out/archived/cancelled), and no routing against siblings such as shelf_create_booking, shelf_reserve_booking, or shelf_booking_remove_assets. The agent must infer all selection logic from the name.

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