Cancel a booking request. A confirmed hotel reservation is cancelled with the hotel under its own cancellation policy, which comes with the quote and the confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Reason for cancellation | |
| booking_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes that cancellation happens with the hotel under its own policy and that the policy comes with the quote and confirmation, but it omits critical traits for a destructive operation: irreversibility, fees/refunds, permissions, and what happens to the booking record.
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 two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by relevant cancellation-policy context. There is no wasted wording.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description should do more. It lacks sibling differentiation, explicit usage guidance, parameter clarification, and the operational consequences of cancellation, leaving the definition under-specified for a destructive tool.
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 only 50%: the reason parameter is documented in the schema, but booking_id is not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented booking_id.
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 resource: cancel a booking request, specifically a confirmed hotel reservation. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool cancel_booking_session, which could cause confusion.
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?
Usage is implied by the mention of confirmed hotel reservations and cancellation policy, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus cancel_booking_session or other booking-related siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
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.