cancel_bookingCancel one of the signed-in user's bookings. Requires the 6-digit verificationCode from request_booking_action_code. This may be irreversible and can trigger a refund per policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Optional cancellation reason (≤1000 chars). | |
| publicId | Yes | The booking's public id. | |
| verificationCode | Yes | 6-digit code from `request_booking_action_code`. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive hint; description adds that cancellation 'may be irreversible and can trigger a refund per policy', which provides additional behavioral 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?
Two efficient, front-loaded sentences that convey purpose, prerequisite, and consequences without 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?
Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisite, and effects. No output schema needed.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage; description does not add new parameter details beyond what schema provides. However, it references the verification code source, which adds some context.
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?
Description clearly states 'cancel one of the signed-in user's bookings', specifying the action and scope. It is distinct from siblings like 'modify_booking' and 'request_booking_action_code'.
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?
Description explicitly requires the 6-digit verification code from 'request_booking_action_code', providing a clear prerequisite. It does not state when not to use, but context is sufficient.
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 or resource: searching, fetching details, checkout flows, booking management, trips, and payment methods. Overlaps like search vs search_hotels and get_booking vs get_my_booking are differentiated by input type or purpose, avoiding ambiguity.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_trip_item, create_checkout, get_rooms). A few exceptions like `fetch` and `search` lack a verb prefix, but they are still descriptive and fit the overall convention.
With 18 tools, the server covers the full hotel booking lifecycle without overwhelming complexity. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers searching, viewing details, booking, checkout, cancellations, modifications, trips, and payment methods. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_trip or update_payment_method), but the core workflows for booking management are complete.