cancel_bookingCancel a booking in any non-terminal state, or a confirmed reservation (the registry notifies the merchant). Cancellation is mandatory when the human no longer wants the table — no-shows destroy merchant trust and are tracked per developer key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| booking_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds valuable context: cancellation notifies the merchant and no-shows are tracked per developer key. It could further disclose reversibility or side effects, but the provided info is adequate.
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 concise with two sentences, no redundant information. It could be slightly more structured, but it is clear and efficient.
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 description covers purpose and behavior but omits parameter details and output. For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, more context on parameters is needed for 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the parameters at all. It fails to explain that booking_id is required or what reason is used for.
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 it cancels a booking in specific states and distinguishes from siblings like modify_booking by focusing on cancellation as mandatory when the human no longer wants the table.
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 says cancellation is mandatory when the human no longer wants the table, providing clear guidance. However, it does not mention when to use alternatives like modify_booking instead.
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.
Every tool has a clear and distinct purpose: booking operations (place, modify, cancel, status), merchant discovery (search, details, availability), registry metadata, and feedback submission. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern using underscore_case (e.g., place_booking, get_merchant, search_merchants). Verbs are descriptive and consistent across the set.
9 tools are well-scoped for a booking registry server, covering all necessary operations without being overly numerous or sparse. Each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: search merchants, get details and availability, place/modify/cancel bookings, check status, submit feedback, and registry metadata. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.