delete_reservation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ownership restriction, which is valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated data, error conditions, or response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core action, and the second adds crucial usage context. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (the action) is front-loaded.

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?

Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions the ownership restriction but omits other critical behavioral aspects (permanence, side effects, response format). For a tool that permanently removes data, more context about consequences and results is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'reservationId' fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., no extra syntax or format details). According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 the action ('Delete') and resource ('a reservation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_reservation' by specifying deletion rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 for when to use this tool: 'Only the owner of the reservation can delete it.' This establishes an important prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. 'update_reservation' for modifications) or name specific alternatives, keeping it from a score of 5.

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