Cancela uma reserva. Se ainda estiver dentro do prazo gratis de uma tarifa
reembolsavel, cancela e estorna automaticamente. Se estiver fora do prazo (ou for
tarifa nao reembolsavel), a resposta vem com bloqueado: true — nesse caso avise o
hospede que o cancelamento com multa precisa ser tratado manualmente (contact@cancun4.me),
NAO insista tentando de novo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| order_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 full burden. It discloses automatic refund behavior, the blocked flag condition, and the required follow-up (manual contact, no retries). This is rich, actionable behavioral disclosure beyond a mere operation definition.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds value (conditions, outcome, escalation path). It is slightly long but not redundant; efficient for the information conveyed.
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 conditional behavior and lack of output schema, the description covers both main outcomes and the manual handling path. Missing parameter details and success response format, but the agent is adequately prepared for the key decision point. More detail on parameters would improve completeness.
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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention `token` or `order_id` at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no guidance is given on format, source, or required roles, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema details.
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 'Cancela uma reserva' (cancels a booking), a specific verb+resource action. It is distinct from all sibling tools (payments, hotel info, quotes, memberships, etc.), and no other cancellation tool exists.
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?
Provides clear conditional context: explains that free-period cancellations auto-refund, while non-refundable/outside-period cancellations return `bloqueado:true` and instruct the agent to escalate manually without retrying. Although no alternative tool is mentioned, none exists among siblings, so this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.