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

Adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it frees capacity, sends transactional notifications, and explains safe retry behavior with the idempotency key. These details enrich the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact sentences with the key usage constraint front-loaded. No filler words; every sentence contributes to correct invocation and behavior understanding.

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 tool with token-based authorization and an output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: when to use, scope, side effects, and retry. It omits explicit sibling alternatives and detailed parameter roles, but the provided context is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 20% (only booking_change_authorization_token is described). The description adds meaning for idempotency_key via retry guidance, but source, correlation_id, and anonymous_session_id remain unexplained. This does not adequately compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: 'cancels only the authorized active booking.' It clearly distinguishes cancellation from sibling tools by focusing on the one-time authorization token and the protected management form context. The title and description align well.

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 states when to use the tool: only with a one-time approval after user confirmation inside the protected management form. It also provides retry guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like reschedule_service_booking or update_service_request, leaving some ambiguity about when not to use it.

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