Cancel an existing vehicle booking by its Gondola booking ID. Use this when a user wants to cancel a rental they previously booked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Set true only after the user has seen the cancellation terms from the preview call and agreed. | |
| booking_id | Yes | The Gondola booking ID (confirmation number) of the vehicle booking. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is already flagged. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond the obvious cancellation action, and does not mention irreversibility, refund implications, or confirmation 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?
Two short sentences deliver the action, resource, identifier, and usage context with no redundancy. The main operation is front-loaded.
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 the output schema exists and annotations cover destructive intent, the description is nearly complete for a straightforward cancellation call. The confirm parameter's terms-and-conditions flow is not mentioned in the description, but it is fully documented in the input schema.
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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces that booking_id is a Gondola ID but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, including the confirm flag semantics.
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 ('Cancel'), a specific resource ('vehicle booking'), and the required identifier ('Gondola booking ID'). It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like book_vehicle or get_vehicle_booking.
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 explicitly says to use this when a user wants to cancel a previously booked rental. It gives clear context for use, though it does not enumerate exclusions or close alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action; no two tools have overlapping purposes. For example, search_hotels, get_hotel_details, get_hotel_reviews, and get_hotel_stats all address different aspects of hotel research.
Tool names follow consistent patterns: search_ for searches, get_ for retrievals, book_ for bookings, and a few standalone verbs like cancel_, create_, delete_. All use snake_case with no mixing of conventions.
With 31 tools, the server is on the high side but covers a broad domain (hotels, flights, vehicles, loyalty, payments). Most tools are justified, though a few hotel analysis tools could potentially be consolidated.
Hotels and vehicles have near-complete lifecycle coverage (search, details, book, manage), but flights are missing a book_flight tool, and hotel cancellation is not present. These gaps limit completeness.
