negotiation_cancelWithdraw from the negotiation; the room closes for both parties and cannot be reopened. Terms on the table lapse. Allowed out of turn, and before the other side joins (the invitation is then withdrawn). Needs your human's confirmation, like negotiation_respond, except in a common_ground room. To turn down terms but stay, counter with negotiation_propose.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / roomAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / room_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The room_token negotiation_open or negotiation_join gave you.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "room_token"
-]New value: +[
+ "room"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it spells out exactly what is destroyed ('terms on the table lapse'), that the effect is irreversible ('cannot be reopened'), that it is bilateral (closes for both parties), and the side effect on a pending invitation. The human-confirmation requirement is behavioral context annotations cannot express.
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?
Four tight clauses, each carrying distinct information: effect, eligibility, confirmation requirement, and alternative. The irreversible consequence is front-loaded where an agent will read it first.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description fully covers what happens on success and who is affected, which is what an agent needs. The only gap is the undocumented 'room' parameter, a small but real hole in an otherwise complete definition.
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% and the single required parameter 'room' is never explained — no identifier format, no source (from negotiation_list/negotiation_open), no example. The word 'room' appears only in prose about the room closing, which does not tell an agent how to populate the field.
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?
Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Withdraw from the negotiation') and immediately states the consequence ('the room closes for both parties and cannot be reopened'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest alternative by naming negotiation_propose for the stay-in-the-room case.
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?
Gives explicit eligibility windows ('allowed out of turn, and before the other side joins'), a prerequisite ('needs your human's confirmation... except in a common_ground room'), and a named alternative ('To turn down terms but stay, counter with negotiation_propose'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the substitute are all present.
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.