update_reservation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies partial update (PATCH) semantics via 'only provide fields you want to change,' but lacks details on authentication, side effects, or idempotency. The description adds some clarity but is not fully transparent.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a key usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple update operation, the description combined with the comprehensive schema provides sufficient information. The partial update hint is valuable. While no output schema exists, the tool's behavior is straightforward enough that this is acceptable.

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 100% with descriptions for all 12 parameters. The description adds critical meaning by specifying that only fields to change should be provided, indicating a partial update. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing reservation' with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'Only provide fields you want to change' distinguishes it from create or delete operations and aligns with its role among sibling tools like create_reservation and delete_reservation.

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?

The description provides clear context: it's for updating existing reservations by providing only fields to change. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it (e.g., cancellation) or suggest alternatives, though that is easily inferred from sibling tool names.

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