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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful scope: only an unsubmitted preparation is affected, and a submitted consultation is not withdrawn, which materially reduces the risk of misusing a destructive operation.

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?

The definition is short and front-loaded: the English sentence states the action and the critical exclusion, and the Korean sentences reinforce the same points without adding noise.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety-critical scope well, especially the submitted-versus-unsubmitted distinction. However, it leaves the required revision parameter unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 the two required parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain journey_id or expected_journey_revision, and the latter in particular needs meaning because it implies optimistic concurrency.

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 and object: cancel an unsubmitted preparation. It immediately distinguishes this from withdrawing an already submitted consultation, which is the key boundary for this tool family.

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?

It explicitly says to call this when the user cancels preparation and clarifies that it is not for cancelling an already submitted consultation. It does not name a specific alternative tool for the submitted case, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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