Reserve İTÜ Library Item

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation, consistent with placing a hold. The description adds that it is unavailable and that confirm=true won't change that, which is useful behavioral context. But other traits like what a successful hold would do, authentication needs, or side effects are absent.

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 very short sentences front-load the tool's nature and its unavailability. Every word 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?

Given three parameters with zero schema descriptions and an output schema, the description is extremely thin. It never explains parameters, return values, or how it relates to other library tools. While it correctly signals deprecation, it leaves the agent without enough to know what the tool would otherwise do.

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 0%, so parameters are entirely undocumented. The description only mentions 'confirm' in a negation and doesn't explain record_id or pickup_location. No meaningful parameter semantics are provided.

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 the tool is a 'library hold tool' but focuses on its unavailability rather than what it does. It doesn't clearly distinguish its purpose from siblings like library_renew_loan or library_get_item—it never says it would place a hold/reservation on an item.

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 effectively signals when not to use it: it's unavailable on the current platform. However, it doesn't suggest alternatives for reserving items, and the explicit 'including with confirm=true' gives a concrete condition to avoid calls.

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