Cancel one of the authenticated customer's upcoming jobs. Call lookup_scheduled_jobs first to get the job ID. Get explicit customer confirmation before setting confirmed to true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The job ID obtained from lookup_scheduled_jobs. | |
| confirmed | Yes | Must be true. Only set after the customer has explicitly confirmed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool cancels jobs (a mutating action), requires prior lookup for job ID, and mandates explicit customer confirmation. This is transparent for a simple cancellation tool, though it doesn't mention reversibility or side effects.
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 sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by essential usage details. Highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema) and the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and a critical safety rule. It fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly, though it omits details about the response or error handling.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: jobId comes from lookup_scheduled_jobs, and confirmed must be true and only after customer confirmation. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool cancels one of the authenticated customer's upcoming jobs. It specifies the verb 'cancel' and the resource 'job' with scope 'authenticated customer's upcoming', distinguishing it from siblings like reschedule_job.
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 guidance: call lookup_scheduled_jobs first to get the job ID, and obtain explicit customer confirmation before setting confirmed to true. This gives clear context on when to use the tool and a safety step, though alternatives are not mentioned.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: quoting, ordering, job cancellation, job rescheduling, profile retrieval, service availability lookup, scheduled jobs listing, and current datetime. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as calculate_quote, cancel_job, get_profile, etc. No mixing of conventions.
8 tools is well-scoped for a home services booking server. It covers the essential customer-facing operations without being too few or excessive.
The tool set covers the core workflow: checking services, getting quotes, creating orders, managing jobs (view, cancel, reschedule). Minor gap: no tool to update profile or payment method, but the surface is largely complete for the stated purpose.
