Cancel a booking you made. Requires booking_id and the lookup_token from book_appointment. Safe to retry (idempotent). No account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| booking_id | Yes | The booking_id returned from book_appointment | |
| lookup_token | Yes | The lookup_token returned from book_appointment for this booking |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds 'Safe to retry (idempotent)' and 'No account needed', providing useful context beyond annotations.
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?
Three concise sentences front-load purpose, then requirements, then additional info. No unnecessary words.
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?
With 2 params, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description provides enough context for a simple cancellation tool. Could mention constraints like cancellation window.
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%, but the description clarifies where to obtain the parameters ('from book_appointment'), adding meaning beyond the schema's description.
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 clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'a booking you made', which is distinct from sibling tools like book_appointment and reschedule_appointment.
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 requires booking_id and lookup_token from book_appointment, and notes 'No account needed'. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like reschedule_appointment.
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 action: booking, cancellation, availability, business details, account management, etc. Even similar tools like get_booking and list_my_bookings have clear differences in parameters and scope.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., book_appointment, get_availability, search_businesses). No mixed styles or irregular verbs.
11 tools is well-scoped for a booking marketplace, covering customer operations, account linking, and business signup without unnecessary duplication.
The tool surface covers the core customer journey (search, view, book, cancel, reschedule) and account management. Minor gaps like business-side booking management are likely out of scope.
