shelf_create_booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that creation results in a DRAFT rather than a confirmed booking, which is not encoded in the schema or annotations. It does not mention permission or validation behavior, so it is not a full 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and state, followed by the sequencing instruction. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description says nothing about the returned booking or required-field expectations, though annotations cover the safety profile. For a 9-parameter creation tool the description is adequate as a routing cue but leaves the agent relying entirely on the schema for inputs and return shape.

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 67%, below the 80% threshold at which the schema would carry the burden, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Nine parameters (name, tags, assetIds, dates, custodianTeamMemberId, timeZone, orgId) are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not compensate for the uncovered third.

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+resource ('Create a booking') and adds the lifecycle state ('as DRAFT'), which clearly separates it from sibling booking tools. It names shelf_reserve_booking as the follow-up, so an agent can tell this tool does not reserve. Slightly short of a 5 only because the crowded set of shelf_*_booking siblings (duplicate, update, checkout) is not otherwise differentiated.

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?

Gives explicit ordering guidance: create here, then call shelf_reserve_booking to reserve. This tells the agent when this tool is the right first step in the workflow. No exclusions or preconditions (auth, availability checks) are stated, keeping it from a 5.

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