remove_reservation_watchDelete an existing reservation watch by its watch ID to stop monitoring or automatic booking for that slot.
등록된 예약 감시를 삭제합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watch_id | Yes | 삭제할 감시의 id (add_reservation_watch 또는 list_reservation_watches로 확인). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool deletes a reservation watch, but does not disclose irreversibility, side effects, required permissions, or what happens if the watch_id does not exist. For a destructive operation this is thin.
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, front-loaded Korean sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the action and object efficiently.
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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, but the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats. It is minimally sufficient for basic invocation, but not rich enough to fully guide an agent around failure modes or consequences.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter watch_id is adequately described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb, '삭제합니다' (deletes), with a clear resource, '등록된 예약 감시' (registered reservation watch). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinct from siblings like list_reservation_watches, add_reservation_watch, and check_availability.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions. The only hint about finding watch_id appears in the schema parameter description, not in the tool-level usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.