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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it cannot be restored, you can add it again, and segment_id controls whether a single segment or the entire booking is removed. This goes beyond the raw hints and clarifies the exact destructive scope.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the irreversibility/recovery caveat, and the flight-specific segmentation rule. The most important scoping fact ('trip stays') is front-loaded at the end of the first sentence, and no redundant wording exists.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what gets removed, the segment variant, irreversibility, and that the trip is unaffected. It doesn't discuss error conditions or return format, but those are less critical for a delete operation given the annotations.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that segment_id is optional, only for flights, and that omitting it removes the whole booking. This is material param semantics the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 explicitly states the action ('Remove one booking from a trip') and clearly differentiates from delete_trip by noting 'the trip stays.' It also specifies the segment_id behavior for flights, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context: when to pass segment_id (flights only) and when to omit it, plus the irreversibility and that the trip remains. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like delete_trip, but the 'trip stays' statement implicitly draws the boundary, and the segment_id guidance is actionable.

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