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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the 'DESTRUCTIVE - confirm' line is partly redundant. The genuine added value is the disclosed side effect that the backend auto-promotes the next waitlisted registration, a non-obvious behavioral trait beyond annotations. Lacks visibility into any reversal or partial-failure behavior, but the waitlist disclosure is meaningful.

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 compact sentences with no filler, leading with the action and progressing to ID origin, side effect, and the warning. The coordinator sentence is useful but could be trimmed; overall well front-loaded.

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 an output schema already covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description fills the remaining gaps: prerequisites (ID source), ownership scope, and the waitlist side effect. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented. The description restates that registration_id comes from register_for_program, which the schema already says, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (Cancels) plus resource (program registrations) and scope (one of the caller's own students'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling 'my' cancellation tools. An agent can identify exactly what this mutates without opening the schema.

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 clear context: the registration_id originates from register_for_program, and coordinators should use the Paxaver panel instead, implicitly excluding that audience. It lacks an explicit when-to-use vs the sibling cancel_my_* tools, so it's strong context but not a full when/when-not guide.

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