shelf_duplicate_booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful behavioral fact — the result is a new *draft* rather than a confirmed booking — but says nothing about which fields are copied, whether the source is untouched, or the state of the duplicate.

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, which is well structured. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 no output schema and a required parameter that is undocumented in both the schema and description, the definition is only minimally complete. An agent knows what the tool produces (a draft) but not the new booking's identifier, copied fields, or whether the draft needs reserving/checkout afterwards.

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 only 50%: bookingId is required but has no description anywhere, and the description adds nothing about it. Only orgId is documented (in the schema itself), so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 (Duplicate) and resource (booking) plus the output form (a new draft), which is enough to distinguish it from shelf_create_booking or shelf_get_booking. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling create/update tools, so it stops 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?

There is no guidance on when to duplicate versus creating a booking from scratch with shelf_create_booking, nor any prerequisite (e.g. the source booking must be visible/accessible, or that this does not modify the original). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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