shelf_update_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 agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds the useful constraint that all core fields are required, but does not disclose whether unspecified fields (e.g. tags, description) are cleared or preserved, nor any permission requirements.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and field list; the trailing parenthetical carries the important 'all core fields required' constraint. No wasted text, though the phrasing is slightly cramped.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the intent and the required-field constraint, and annotations cover the safety profile. It omits update semantics (replace vs merge for optional fields like tags) and confirmation of what the response returns, leaving modest gaps.

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 67%, with descriptions on endDate, startDate, custodianTeamMemberId, orgId, timeZone, and tags. The description lists the mutable fields but adds no format or merge semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it sits at the mid-coverage baseline.

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 (Update) and resource (booking), and enumerates the mutable fields (name, dates, custodian, description, tags). An agent can distinguish it from shelf_create_booking and shelf_get_booking, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives for related mutations (e.g. shelf_reserve_booking, shelf_checkout_booking), and no prerequisites stated. The only constraint, 'all core fields required,' is a schema note rather than routing guidance.

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