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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses idempotency ('returns wasAlreadyCancelled=true'), terminal-state behavior ('returns a conflict'), and the terminal outcome ('cancelled_by_client'). It does not detail auth requirements or exact error responses, but the key operational traits are clearly surfaced.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by idempotency semantics and alternative tool references. Every sentence adds distinct, valuable information with no padding or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple cancellation tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is complete: it states the purpose, the exact behavior in edge cases, and the sibling tools to use for related operations. The only minor omission is parameter-level detail, but that is covered by the parameter semantics dimension.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning for requestId by explaining it refers to a pending reschedule request and discussing states, but it does not explicitly describe orgSlug or apiKey. The parameter names are fairly self-evident, but the description could have mapped them more directly.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Cancel', identifies the resource as 'a pending reschedule request (SessionRequest)', and clarifies the actor perspective: 'on behalf of the client who proposed it'. It further distinguishes the outcome ('outcome=cancelled_by_client') and differentiates from siblings by naming the 'client-side withdrawal in the bilateral loop'.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is for the client-side withdrawal of a pending reschedule request. It also names alternatives: 'Use booking_list_requests to find pending requests; use booking_resolve_request for the org's own approve/reject.' This clearly directs an agent to the right tool in context.

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