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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description aligns by explicitly saying it cancels an active wait. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the precise object being destroyed and the LIBRARY login requirement. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the session requirement is stated in a compact parenthetical.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers what is cancelled, when it applies, and the session/login requirement. However, with no output schema and a destructive operation, it omits the expected result and any required preceding steps such as prepare_cancel_library_seat or confirmation.

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?

The schema fully documents mcp_session_id as optional, with a clear fallback to the current MCP transport session. The description's statement 'mcp_session_id 필요' contradicts this optionality and could mislead an agent into treating the parameter as required. The login context adds some value, but the conflict is harmful.

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, '취소합니다' (cancel), and a clear resource: an active library seat wait intent whose reservation has not started. This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_library_wait_status and from wait_for_library_seat, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives a clear condition for use ('아직 예약이 시작되지 않은 활성 도서관 좌석 대기 intent') and a prerequisite ('mcp_session_id 필요(LIBRARY 로그인)'). It does not, however, mention alternatives or related workflow steps such as prepare_cancel_library_seat or confirm_action.

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