Cancel a scheduled ride

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add consequence detail — irreversibility, cancellation windows, fees, or whether the schedule_id is validated. It supplies none of that. The only added behavioral element is the vague "only call when the user asks" guard, which does not explain what destruction actually means here.

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 the action stated first and the usage guard second — appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool. The second sentence is slightly wasteful because it restates an obvious safety norm rather than specifying it.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and an adjacent sibling that cancels non-scheduled rides. Given that complexity, the description should cover the identifier source, the destructive consequence, and the cancel_ride boundary; it covers none of these.

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?

There is one required parameter, schedule_id, at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent gets no signal on where the identifier comes from (presumably list_scheduled_rides) or what format it takes, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Cancels a ride booked for later" gives a specific verb plus a qualified resource, and the phrase "booked for later" implicitly separates it from the immediate-cancel sibling. It stops short of naming cancel_ride, which is the one sibling an agent could confuse it with.

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?

"Only call when the user asks" is a genuine usage gate, but it is thin and ambiguous — does an agent-initiated suggestion count as the user asking? There is no guidance on choosing this over cancel_ride, which is the primary routing decision for this tool.

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